OK, very well, and I can understand the "danism" aspect. I stand by my suggestion to tag then with "historical:aeroway" , and be assured of my support and sympathy. Meanwhile, someone saw fit to tag with "removed:" which seems to me utter nonsense :(
Regards,
Karel

Thank you sincerely for discussing openly, and for voicing your suspicion.

There is even some truth to it: I am not primarily concerned about the presentation of the map; my first concern is to have a correct, complete, and historically sound database of geographical information - aerodrome information more specifically. Allow me to remind you our edits do not directly affect the map! They affect the database, and from the database is constructed the map. But the database serves a multitude of other purposes, too - you might be surprised to see how many applications consult the database directly, to do all kinds of different things with it, often very specialised.

So while I agree we should not enter data into the database that makes the map incorrect, we do should take care to first and above all have a correct and complete database. Compromise may help a lot! In this particular case, using the disused: tags seemed a fair compromise to me, because on the one hand they keep the relevant information in the database, on the other hand they do not show up on the map with the present rendering mechanism.

The key phrase in all this discussion is "do not map for the renderer": we should not base our edits on their effects in the published map. By the way, there is much annoyance among mappers of aeronautical information (there are but a few across Europe, I have been in touch with several, over the years) that the renderer only has one way of displaying aerodromes, which means it will apply the same presentation to a busy international airport as to a rural recreational aerodrome. There has been some effort to get several levels of aerodrome to be recognised and handled by the renderer, but with no success so far.

I hope I have convinced you of my seriousness :) and remain very much available for further discussion!

Kindly yours,
Karel ADAMS
Haacht, Belgium.

Hm, that is confusing. In a previous message you stated the runway was slowly being taken over by overgrowth and by the quarry - which sounded quite realistic. Now you tell me there's nothing left of it? That is quite a different thing.

If there is really nothing left, I think the historical:aeroway=runway and historical:aeroway=aerodrome would be most appropriate. there is an article somewhere in the OSM wiki about "life-cycle management" which points all of this out - but honestly, I have found few people attach so much importance to such minor differences. There is however nothing wrong with perfectionism! :)

Karel

And if you will kindly excuse the "schoolteacher" style: next time please first discuss, before removing. Sincere thanks in advance!
Karel

Thanks for information. However removing is not the right approach: we could go on and on, me adding it and you removing - no good. I will re-add, but with proper tags of disused and closed. This will also avoid the field showing up in the map - an important concern for some, though myself don't really care.
Feel free to discuss further, perhaps directly at [email protected].
Kind regards!
Karel

Ok, thanks for info, and for polite discussion. It is a pity we do not have a formal procedure for closed or disused aerodromes. But I agree that, if it has been closed for close on 10 years, it is little likely to reopen...
Kind regards / Migliore Salute,
Karel ADAMS

Dear,
You apparently removed the ICAO code from this airfield. Why?
Regards,
Karel ADAMS
[email protected]

Thank you, an excellent action!

OK, thanks.

I am very unhappy about the very drastic "correction" - several aerodromes have completely disappearded from the map:
* EDMH Gunzenhausen-Reutberg was way/587688939
* EDWH Oldenburg Hatten
* EDWV Verden-Scharnhorst.

Kindly restore them, feel free to ask for help if needed.

Thanks, @JJIglesias. I have resigned to the existence of aerodromes with no name, though it feels to me like "a pub with no beer" :) And I certainly agree that we are NOT producing the AIP or any other official kind of data. However I cannot agree with you that all aerodromes (in the broadest sense of the word) need to be in the AIP or in any other official document: some countries require this, my own BE for example, but others do not. France and Italy are notorious examples for _not_ requiring ultralight fields to be in the AIP. In Italy they are called "campo di volo" and there are quite a lot of them. I think Spain and Portugal have no such requirement, either.
And by the way, length and orientation and a few more are properties of runways, not of aerodromes. Also, you are right that (in most countries) there is a legal requirement for pilots to use "appropriate" data, but not all countries define that "appropriate". Ask me how I know! :)
Karel ADAMS, flying the OO-G86

Thanks again, @SomeoneElse. Can it be verified that an apple is an apple? Can it be verified that an Airstrip in Slagelse is an Airstrip in Slagelse? May an apple be given the name "apple" May ... ??

Sorry, I won't - but I will not enter a reversal war either.

(apologies for the typo - s/Stragelse/Slagelse/g)

You are only saying it does not have an "official" name. Again, a dog is a dog and a train is a train and an Airstrip in Stragelse is an Airstrip in Stragelse. Allow me to insist: what is so very wrong about giving this one airstrip a name, even if it is not offical? Your insistence - against many thousand other aerodromes in Europe and beyond - is SO suspect! There really must be more to this! I think I am going to find out about requesting arbitration from "the powers that be" - this is not normal.

What has "being the owner" to do here? Has only the owner the right to add a "name=*" tag?
The arguments are becoming more and more remote, there must really be something dark behind it all. Why not call an apple an apple? Why not call an Airstrip in Slagelse an Airstrip in Slagelse?

And may I also refer to the pointer by @SomeoneElse at the very beginning of this discussion: I could find nothing there to imply that only "official" names can be used. But the article seems to care little about aerodromes.

Again sorry, but you do nothing to convince me. There is nothing official about the source you mention. That this name has been invented by someone else does not make a difference, it is not an official name so it is an invented name - if I follow your reasoning.

But you may find me an official source for the name=* tag in node/1948279440 if you prefer ;)

In short: I refuse to accept that the name=* tag needs to be backed up by an official source, and it seems more than obvious to me that there is a zillion examples to support that. And again, even if an official source is required, then please define "official".

And again and again: WHAT is being hushed up??? Why are you so radically against giving a name, even if it is not "official"? Back to Stalinism, or what?

Sorry, I really cannot agree. Are you really meaning to say that "name=" should only be tagged if an official source is given? If so, how do you define "official"? For an extreme example, what was the official source for the "name=" in node/2318851468 ? Are you really going to remove that information? It seems useful to me, and fully agreeing with the spirit and purpose of openstreetmap.

And what do you mean with "better cope with nameless airstrips"?