Also, is it confirmed that the Campo di Volo has become completely inexistant? As long as it remains visible as such, it should be in our database; possibly with addition of a "closed=yes" or "disused=yes" tag.

That will be a step forward, indeed. Taking better care of spelling would be another :) .

It is indeed. Why then did you map it as a "Segelflugfeld"??? The wiki is quite clear about how to properly map such model fields.
Also see: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=72086

This seems smallish, for a glider field. Is it really one? Any references?

When describing an aerodrome as a way - which is essentially a very good thing! - please take care to avoid double information. In this case there already existed a node describing the aerodrome. The correct thing to do is to copy all the info from the node to the way, then remove the node. I already did this for Gällivare.

Grazie molto :) ! My reaction was based upon satellite images, indeed I am an "armchair mapper" at least 1000 km north of Italy. If indeed the place is "razed" then your action was quite correct.
Thanks for polite conversation, and keep up the good work!
Migliori ricordi,
Karel ADAMS, Haacht.

If it is "chiusa", closed, then it was better to add a tag "closed=yes" rather than bluntly removing it.

Thans for the tip.

This seems to only add confusion, I intend to remove it. The little CdV was neatly mapped, there was no need or requirement to make things more complicated.

Dear friends, please keep communication in English :) But I must frankly say I am quite lost on your discussion, I think I'll not contribute very much beyond this point. Please remember my main concern: each aerodrome should be mentioned once and exactly once with the "aeroway=aerodrome" tag; this is important for the visible map (although of course we should not merely map for the renderer) but also for those applications that consult the database directly, through Overpass or other mechanisms. Agian, my sincere gratitude for the polite and constructive discussion!

Excuse me for having been very busy. I do not know very much about relations, in fact I try to avoid them as much as possible. So I do not have very firm ideas, only a general picture. A further complication is that there already exists a relation, describing the full military area.

As I see it, we need to create a second relation. This is to describe the complete aerodrome. It should contain all the info from the AIP (operator, elevation, ICAO code) and a few more (IATA code). This relation should have as its main taig aeroway:aerodrome. The relation should have two members: on the one hand the military area, which includes the runways and taxiways and the revetments on the North side; this is largely ok, and presently has no aeroway= tagging; can remain largely as is. The second member should be the civilian terminal; this is presently tagged as aeroway=aerodrome, in my thinking this should be changed to aeroway=terminal. Also, it presently holds many tags that should (always in my thinking) be transferred to the relation, since they describe the whole aerodrome, not just the terminal.
I hope I made myself clearer? If not, feel free to mail me at karlchen9 @ skynet . be
Kind regards,
Karel ADAMS

Dear, I am much obliged for your friendly and open way of discussion. Thank you very much!

This particular aerodrome is a bit difficult, as it remains military but also has a civilian terminal; there have been arguments over this configuration in many places.
The best solution I can think of:
* put all the aeronautical info in a relation, with aeroway=aerodrome
* the relation has two members:

** aeroway=terminal for the civilian terminal

** landuse=military ; military=airfield but no aeroway tag for the rest of the area, which includes runways and taxiways

However, most and above all, I recommend to discuss with the mapper of way/666909831 (Hjart); he is Danish, whereas I am in faraway Belgium, and he has some quite outspoken ideas about how to map aerodromes.

Very kindly yours from Haacht, Brabant,
Karel ADAMS
[email protected]

The airfield is mentioned in several lists, for example maps.aopa.ru, therefore it is not a good idea to remove it entirely. Others may, in good faith, re-add it. Also, it shows up on satellite images although these may be dated. Could we agree on tagging as "abandoned:aeroway"?

Added aeroway=airstrip.
It is not impossible to detect this.

It is quite normal for edits to take some time to propagate, especially to the "smaller" zoom factors. At zoom factor 12, it can easily take a week. Thanks for your good work! I was only a bit confused at your initial "amazon" comment. Kind regards! Karel.

Ah, THAT "kind of" amazon! You did manage to confuse me! All clear, now, and thanks for taking care. Next time. a bit more conciseness might help, though. And perhaps you could remove the runway, too?

Dear, you apparently removed node/6216201392 ("Battleflat farm airstrip") with the somewhat cryptical message "Airstrip is now amazon" What have the female warriors of antiquity to do with this? What actually happened? More generally, if the airstrip is no longer active, better to not remove it; changing the tag to "disused:aeroway" or such is imho much better. Regards,
Karel ADAMS
[email protected]

Of anders gezegd: het staat u vrij om dat bij te sturen ...

You have every liberty to improve on it :)

Bonsoir,

Tout d'abord mon respect et ma reconnaissance de discuter poliment - et avant de prendre aucune action. J'en ai vu d'autres!

Le manque de nuances dans la représentation des aérodromes est un ancien problème, et je n'y vois pas de solution. Le point névralgique se trouve en fait dans le "renderer", ou les "tiles" ("dalles"?) sont créés en fonction de la base de données. Mais s'il est normal, et courant, et généralement efficace, de discuter la base de données, et comment l'alimenter, je ne trouve pas moyen de contacter les gestionnaires du "renderer" - à ma frustration!

Cela étant dit, si cela vous ennuie que cette hydrobase soit affichée en permanence, et de l'identique même façon que CDG-Roissy :) , rien ne doit vous retenir de modifier le tag "aeroway=aerodrome" en "aeroway=airstrip" ; c'est ce qui est aussi fait pour la grande plupart des ulmodromes en France. A ma connaissance, les logiciels qui consultent la bases de données "en direct", p.e. en interrogeant Overpass, sont généralement capables de traiter l'un tag juste comme l'autre.

Bien chaleureusement,

Karel ADAMS

Haacht, Brabant, Belgique.

PS veuillez bien m'excuser le manque d'accents ci et là - mon clavier qwerty ne les encourage pas :( Et s'il y restait des fautes d'ortographe ou de grammaire: désolé, je ne suis pas né Francophone...

PPSS courriel direct très le bienvenu: karlchen9 arobat skynet point be