I stand corrected.
Gladly would I remove the offending posting, but I could not find a way.

okay, I will be updating.
Thanks again!
Karel

Thanks for quick reply! and thanks for information!
Still, I am not sure that we should now map it as an active runway, that makes it look like anyone can fly there and land their aeroplane.
I changed it to "aeroway=highway_strip", that really seems to me the most appropriate tagging, but you reverted that. Please check at aeroway=highway_strip
What other alternative do you propose?
Kind regards from far-away Portugal,

Is this really an active aerodrome, with more or less regular aviation activity? It seems unlikely to me, but I have no local information. Please explain?

Next time, please add a "disused" tag rather than bluntly removing.

Excuse me for reverting this changeset - it adds no value, because the aerodrome is already very well given in way/923176461. Also, it is a bit "funny" to map an aerodrome with explicit exclusion of the runway :)

Please feel free to "correct" as you see useful, as long as you don't tag anything as an active aerodrome or an active runway. There is neither, in that vicinity.

I'm sorry, I cannot be bothered. iD is famous (to say the least) for its confused and inconsistent "error" alerts. Now if you could tell me which element triggers the alert I could take a look, but you seem to be either unable or unwilling to offer precise information - so be it!

which errors in which issues report??

Thanks for polite reply - even if I cannot help wondering about what you are trying to achieve, and how. I will be absent now for several days, do not expect any kind of reply from mine within one week, at least.
Regards,

what a mess! please clean up, or shall I do so for you?
There is only one aerodrome, this changeset creates a handful of them - quite unacceptable.

My turn to say thanks! I have slightly updated the "new" field at Rusolje. Please feel free to check there, and update as you see appropriate.

Two gentle warnings, though:
1/ do not map "for the renderer"
2/ do not mention the big bad G - it is an effective way of invoking wrath from (some of) the Data Working Group ;)

All clear, though - again my warm gratitude for positive collaboration.

Best regards from far-away Portugal,

Ok, thanks for explaining. t was however not very correct to simply remove it, because traces remain visible, at least in satellite imagery. Of course the images may be out of date, but still the action was very confusing. Better had been to leave the aerodrome in place, but tagged with "abandoned" or even "historic".

Why was the aerodrome removed? (icao ref. LYKS) If it is no longer operational, better to tag with disused=yes or such, and best with a reference of authority - as things stand stand now, it will soon be re-added.

I think Aviano Air Base is a strong example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviano_Air_Base

I can only verify your second point, and you have it totally wrong. There are plenty of military air bases that have iata codes assigned.

Are you sure? The IATA web page explicitly mentions "Krymska"!
You searched for "NOI"
City Name Location Name 3-letter location code
Novorossiysk Krymska NOI

And why was the IATA code removed from the Krymsk Air Base? It is still given by the primary reference https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/?airport.search=NOI !

António,
Thanks for your vigilance and quick and correct qction. Sure enough my action must have been by mistake, I only tried to add a shop in that area, plus its access roads. I will look into it later, it is not a crucial point anyway.
Kindly!
Karel (Jan is a nickname only, dating from my aviation days)

Apologies cheerfully accepted :) ! And it is now clear that the code stems from one private publisher - nothing wrong with that. Thanks again!