There you are mixing up two points. On the one hand I am glad to agree that tags like "private=*" are very important, and should be respected. On the other hand I insist we cannot be TOO clear; so we should use all means available, and the "name=" is one and a very prominent one. Refusing to use it is to be willingly blind .

@hjart: first of all my apologies for misspelling your id higher up. That said: surely an official name is to be preferred, but if there is none than it is better to do our best than to offer nothing at all. What name is given can be discussed, and edited, asnd changed, and changed again, but no name at all is the worst there can be. And again: why sould, of all the 7000 or so aerodromes in Europe, this airstrip be the only one to NOT have a name=* tag? I am beginning to wonder if there is a hush-up going on - is this where the queen's mistress lives, or so? :)

@JKHougaard: you are entirely right, we cannot be considered responsible for the interpretation of the data we present. Still, is that a sufficient reason to NOT give this particular field a "name=" tag? There are hundres of little airfields around Europe that are not in any official source of information, yet they all have a name. Yes, all of them, I run scripts to check on that. In Portugal, in Estonia, in Kosovo, everywhere. Why should this one Danish airstrip be an exception?
Regards,
Karel

Thank you for chiming in, critically yet politely.
I must admit that the "we" is a bit of "pluralis majestatis" - it really is my own personal opinion. Yet it is an opinion grown over the years, and over ample discussion.

1) aerodromes should really not be nameless. There have been cases of foreign pilots getting an indication of "hey there's an airfield there, right where I need an intermediate stop" and plops they fly in and land, whether it be private or military or whatever. Lack of information on the map is their invariable excuse, even if it is a very poor excuse.
2) fellow mapper @jhart seems very concerned to point out the private character of this particular aerodrome, and I am fully willing to support that.
3) I agree with the wiki page you referred to that, if an official name is given, that is what we should use. However I am not aware of any such, in this case. The one official source of information regarding aerodromes is called the AIP, I did check the Danish AIP but to no avail.
99) Facit: blank name = no good, official name = not given, private character important, so I tagged "name=Slagelse private airstrip"
Suggestions and discussion welcome!
Karel ADAMS
[email protected]

Merci de votre communication polie et constructive! A ce que je comprends, il y a bien une piste de modellistes mais l'autre sert aux ULM - bonne idée de combiner les deux activités, sur deux pistes parallèles! Ma source est le site www.basulm.ffplum.fr qui mentionne le terrain comme ulmodrome actif. Mais je suis bien loin, si vous avez des infos locales je vous saurai gré de me confirmer la cessation des activités ULM sur le site.
Meilleures salutations,

Hallo Stephan,
Thanks for constructive and polite discussion! Yes, moving all data from the NODE to the WAY would be one possible approach. I have however little trust in this WAY as it is now - have you seen it cuts straight across the apron?
On a more general note, I much regret that OSM leaves room for this kind of ambiguity - IMHO it should never be possible to map an aerodrome both as a way and as a node.
All that said, I will leave things as they are for the time being. Feel free to do your own thing! As long as each aerodrome is one and exactly one time in the database, I am a happy mapper :)
Kindly from Haacht, BE,
Karel ADAMS

:-)
Also: what do you think of the "Centrum Handlowe Góraszka" which is mapped as a node right on where the runway was? I am against removing things but this one seems an obvious mistake.
Regards,

OK, all respect for your good intentions. Yet you were (in my opinion) mistaken. Correct is to leave the aerodrome in the database, but add a "closed=yes" to it. If we simply remove the aerodrome, somebody not aware of what happened might think it was not included by mistake, and re-add it, all with the best intentions.
I will take the liberty to re-add the aerodromek, but as as simple node, and with the appropriate tagging.
Kind regards,

Why did you remove this aerodrome? Perhaps it was closed; but in this case it should not be removed, lest someone else re-add it. Allow me to insist you should revert the removal, then add a tag like "closed=yes" to it; or whatever other correction.

I am far away, local information is always better. If you have information that this is no longer an active aerodrome, please feel free to add tags like "disused=yes" or "closed=yes". Thanking you for paying attention! And yes, a central repository of information, quite specialistic, and covering such a huge area, is prone to being outdated.

It is one of the many I added after finding of maps.aopa.ru. That data can be downloaded in several formats, I am using an xml version.

Yes, I am well aware it is closed; that is why I added a tag "closed=yes" :)
I am sorry about the reversal. Couldn't it be left in place, given its historical importance? Also, as I understand, its icao code UUUS is still valid and assigned.

OK, klar, vielen Dank! Ich überlege mal...
Herzlich!

So ist es gemeint, ja. Du kannst es gerne anpassen wenn du dafür guten Grund siehst. Ich bin mir eben nicht so sicher ob es eine gute Idee ist, Email-Adressen zu mappen, die ändern sich ja so schnell.
M.fr.Gr.,
Karel ADAMS
[email protected]

I am much annoyed that you added double information. The aerodrome was already amply documented in node/47912643. It is a basic rule of database management that all info should be given one and exactly ONE time.
Please feel free to discuss per direct email: [email protected]
Regards,
Karel ADAMS

I am afraid we cannot be bothered by the needs of one or other private club. Will seek advise before reverting, though. If you can find another way to avoid double information, you are very welcome. Regards,

I've no idea. There is no mention of copyright or licence in the pdf that I could find. Let me have an address and I'll be glad to mail it to you. Regards,

I found it in a list , published as a pdf, called "Britisch Isles Airfield Guide". It dates from 2013 though, so I cannot vouch there still is an active aerdrome today. Do feel free to add "note" or "fixme" or "closed=yes" as you see fit. Regards,

It was taken (along with several more) from

https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoznam_let%C3%ADsk_na_Slovensku#Letisk.C3.A1

Regards,

Caro Marco,
Thanks for your comment. I fully agree there are far too many vague points regarding "what tag to apply where" and I dearly wish there would be clearer guidelines.
If creating a node (not a way as is the case here) with aeroway=aerodrome, local_ref IS a preferred tag of the Potlatch editor. I have taken that as an indication that it is a preferred tasg of "the powers that be". And indeed I have already used applied it to many many aerodromes in Europe, particularly in France, where I apply the LFddnn codes from basulm; and also in Italy where I apply the ppabc codes from www.ulm.it if any is given; and I am not the only mapper to do so.
The "ref" is particularly confusing: according to the editor it should mention the IATA code, but many mappers use it in other ways. Myself avoid using it for this reason; I will use "IATA", though rarely; and "IACO" if one is available from the AIP, or "local_ref" for all else.

I am very much open to further discussion, and would be particularly glad to come to a "norm" or "standard" on how to map aerodromes; there is far to much room for variation presently. Do feel free to mail me directly at karlchen9 at skynet dot be .

Migliori saluti da Haacht, Belgio,
Karel ADAMS