OSM changeset discussions of jan

Changeset	#	Tmstmp UTC	Contributor	Comment
43095703 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-10-23 09:12	1	2023-05-01 09:21	Apirnus ♦27	Saw fix me tag on it when this change was added. No, it is not disused at all. Kaitseliit is using it, Kaitsevägi is using it for training all year round. This area maybe could be changed to military usage but it is definetly not abandoned or disused.
	2	2023-05-01 09:50	Jan Olieslagers ♦201	Thanks! But are they using _for_aviation_ ? checked, and could not even find it any longer in the AIP nor in the VFR guide, so it would seem that _as_an_aerodrome_ it is more disused than ever.
	3	2023-05-01 10:12	Apirnus ♦27	No, it is not used for aviation per se altho I know at least one trial of landing on it in modern times few years ago which ended not so well for the plane... Anyway, its used more for ground troops training rather than for aviation. Whole area is used not for the purpose of aviation but for other t...
	4	2023-05-01 10:47	Jan Olieslagers ♦201	Thanks again, I already updated the entry. Observe that I also replaced "military=yes" by the standard "landuse=military", that will have its effect upon rendering. Would you have more details about the trial of landing that ended "not so well"? Kindly, KA
	5	2023-05-01 11:06	Apirnus ♦27	Yes, searched for it a little. Its estonian language but references I think could be found even more so. Landing happened on the year 2015. A10 planes landed and there were some damages to at least one plane because the landing track is in severely bad condition besides all the debris on the track...
66078784 by jan_olieslagers @ 2019-01-06 19:43	1	2021-08-20 07:50	kapazao ♦909	Hello, could you explain this changeset? Do you have any reference about this airport? I do not think it exists
	2	2021-08-20 08:02	Jan Olieslagers ♦201	Greetings! I took reference from https://aterriza.org/el-ejido/ But mind you, the field may well have disappeared, ultralight fields tend to come and go, sometimes at a rapid rate. If you have local information then go ahead, I am far away and only basing upon www references - which aren't al...
	3	2021-08-20 08:55	kapazao ♦909	Thank you for your answer, I will check it. Regards
98225221 by jan_olieslagers @ 2021-01-27 11:22	1	2021-03-09 06:08	marc__marc ♦1,265	Merci de l'avoir détecté. c'était une poubelle avant la modif fantaisiste, je l'ai rétablie.
98862080 by jan_olieslagers @ 2021-02-07 18:55	1	2021-02-09 23:03	confusedbuffalo ♦332	Hi, did you request review because you were hoping for someone local to confirm that this is in current use? If so, probably best to leave a note instead as that can more easily be spotted later
	2	2021-02-10 00:01	jan_olieslagers	Thans for the tip.
97211221 by jan_olieslagers @ 2021-01-09 12:49	1	2021-01-10 19:20	topolusitania ♦218	There is no airstrip here, An air strip bended is quite bizarre.
44345419 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-12-12 13:07	1	2020-04-03 05:58	aceman444 ♦2,567	Hi, surely the site is not called "radar site" in the local language. So please do not put such descriptions into the 'name' tag but maybe into 'note' and a 'fixme' tag so that somebody can add the proper name later. Thanks
46416832 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-02-26 14:19	1	2019-02-03 18:24	tuxayo ♦273	Bonjour, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4706643485 «Only active during designated manifestations, otherwise forbidden» https://basulm.ffplum.fr/PDF/LF1355.pdf « Utilisation EPISODIQUE » «Observations : Zone désactivée.» Est-ce qu&#...
	2	2019-02-03 19:21	jan_olieslagers	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 p...
	3	2019-03-27 11:37	tuxayo ♦273	Bonjour, > Tout d'abord mon respect et ma reconnaissance de discuter poliment - et avant de prendre aucune action. J'en ai vu d'autres! Merci, effectivement c'est un problème ^^" > "tiles" ("dalles"?) "tuiles" je crois q...
	4	2020-03-18 21:23	tuxayo ♦273	> je ne trouve pas moyen de contacter les gestionnaires du "renderer" Y a t-il un problème avec les rendus? Ou alors c'est les données qui ne montre pas vraiment les différences dont nous avons besoin?
	5	2020-03-18 21:24	tuxayo ♦273	Pour savoir si il faut agir côté conventions de cartographie ou interprétation par les rendus.
58927945 by jan_olieslagers @ 2018-05-13 16:05	1	2019-08-19 19:35	py_berrard ♦70	Un utilisateur déclare qu'il n'y a aucun aérodrome ici. Qu'en est-il réellement ? https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1889934
67175646 by jan_olieslagers @ 2019-02-13 21:28	1	2019-05-23 11:49	gormur ♦119	Then why didn't you do as you suggested yourself? Now there is no rendering of the outer perimeter of the aerodrome...
	2	2019-05-23 13:31	Jan Olieslagers ♦201	:) because I do not care very much about the rendering. Especially as the rendering of aerodromes is very poor anyway, sadly. I am already content if the database is more or less ok. Kind regards! Karel ADAMS karlchen9@skynet.be
68107232 by jan_olieslagers @ 2019-03-13 17:03	1	2019-03-13 21:07	feta2 ♦24	Hello jan_olieslagers, I noticed that (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666909831#map=17/56.31117/9.12177) does not cover any of the runways or taxiways. Per the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aeroways) and various international airports (Way: Flughafen München (487185364), W...
	2	2019-03-14 06:11	jan_olieslagers	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: ...
	3	2019-03-14 08:25	Hjart ♦4,116	What kind of relation would you have in mind, Karel? I don't see any that would really work well. We have 2 other similar situations in Denmark: at Ålborg and Skrydstrup, and I was always in doubt how to map them.
	4	2019-03-14 20:00	feta2 ♦24	jan_olieslagers, I am also curious about what kind of relation you have in mind. Do you gave an example of one already in the data?
	5	2019-03-15 16:03	jan_olieslagers	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, ...
	6	2019-03-16 09:42	Hjart ♦4,116	The current representation of the military airfield (a multipolygon) appears rather misleading to me (look at i.e. the representation in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Flyvestation_Karup zoom out to see the entire airfield). I'm not all that familiar with this particular airfield, ...
	7	2019-03-16 10:36	osmviborg ♦1,643	Delete 485655137 as part of the multipolygon, it's the fenced area, but keep the way as fence. Create a new inner representing the aerodrome area, using this chart https://aim.naviair.dk/media/files/nbrvyxd0a0a/EK_AD_2_EKKA_ADC_en.pdf
	8	2019-03-16 11:23	Hjart ♦4,116	I'm not at all sure how to tell from that pdf what's civilian vs what's military. I've removed the fenced area from the multipolygon and edited the one of the outers to exclude the civilian terminal as best i could though
	9	2019-03-16 11:36	Hjart ♦4,116	@osmviborg: do you know where https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saab_AR_35_Draken_AR-112_-_Flyvestation_Karup.jpg is located (if it's still here)? I recently tried to spot it in the SDFE aerial imagery, but failed.
	10	2019-03-16 12:13	osmviborg ♦1,643	The whole area is military, including the area where civilian airport is located. The gate guard is located to the right of the main gate.
	11	2019-03-16 13:05	Hjart ♦4,116	If the whole area is really military (including the area used for the civilian terminal) then there's no point in creating another inner?
	12	2019-03-16 14:04	osmviborg ♦1,643	A new inner for the aerodrome area only, runways and taxiways. This is where the civilian traffic is allowed.
	13	2019-03-16 14:21	Hjart ♦4,116	The runways etc are part of the military area (Flyvestation Karup), right? If they are, then it will be misleading to exclude them (create an inner) from the multipolygon.
	14	2019-03-16 14:48	Hjart ♦4,116	As an example, what's in the inner of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6048794 isn't part of the building.
	15	2019-03-16 15:38	osmviborg ♦1,643	@Hjart, EKKA ARP 561750.85N 0090728.66E, et punkt, fyld de relevante oplysninger ind i punktet, dixi
	16	2019-03-16 15:48	jan_olieslagers	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&qu...
	17	2019-03-18 21:25	feta2 ♦24	@Hjart - you mentioned that the Ålborg airport has a similar issue. It looks like mikkolukas and juliaboy agreed to having one polygon with both a military=airfield and a aeroway=aerdrome tag. This also follows OSM policy: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Daerodrome#Military_ai...
	18	2019-03-18 22:58	Hjart ♦4,116	Aalborg is 2 areas too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/665995354
	19	2019-03-19 16:47	Jan Olieslagers ♦201	Yes, @hjart, sadly so. It seems so obviously incorrect to me to have two entries, both mentioning the IATA code and the ICAO code and several more. One day, some information will change, and some well-meaning mapper will update one entry but not the other and then there will be no end to confusion. ...
68030656 by jan_olieslagers @ 2019-03-11 17:08	1	2019-03-11 18:12	Prusaker ♦141	This aerodrome is fully abandoned and does not exist in reality, so disused tag doesn't applicable in this case.
	2	2019-03-11 18:14	Prusaker ♦141	Probably myay be to remove all tags altogether, since the object does not exist.
	3	2019-03-11 20:11	jan_olieslagers	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"?
	4	2019-03-11 20:14	Prusaker ♦141	No objection from my side :) Let's use abandoned:aeroway.
67494808 by jan_olieslagers @ 2019-02-23 14:19	1	2019-02-23 19:05	ndm ♦889	Please add a changeset comment - it's difficult to click on a "."
	2	2019-02-24 12:46	jan_olieslagers	Added aeroway=airstrip. It is not impossible to detect this.
49977563 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-07-02 06:24	1	2019-02-05 11:10	canfe ♦1,117	L'elevazione (ele) dell'aerodromo non è nel formato corretto.
	2	2019-02-05 11:28	jan_olieslagers	You have every liberty to improve on it :)
	3	2019-02-05 13:22	jan_olieslagers	Of anders gezegd: het staat u vrij om dat bij te sturen ...
66460337 by jan_olieslagers @ 2019-01-19 18:25	1	2019-01-19 19:41	Hjart ♦4,116	I have removed this. Recent (from last spring) SDFE aerial imagery shows bare fields and the quarry extending into the old runway (as seen on Bing imagery)
	2	2019-01-19 19:50	jan_olieslagers	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'...
	3	2019-01-19 19:54	jan_olieslagers	And if you will kindly excuse the "schoolteacher" style: next time please first discuss, before removing. Sincere thanks in advance! Karel
	4	2019-01-19 21:37	Hjart ♦4,116	You don't care whether a closed airstrip shows on the map or not? That makes me suspect you're not really a serious mapper. Note that I also prefer to keep discussions like these in the open.
	5	2019-01-19 22:00	jan_olieslagers	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 infor...
	6	2019-01-20 05:25	atcomapper ♦315	OSM is not a historical map. If you wish to create a map of historic airfield (which is absolutely interesting; I am an aviator myself) - OSM is NOT the place to do it. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_historic_events_and_historic_features
66462086 by jan_olieslagers @ 2019-01-19 19:53	1	2019-01-19 21:41	Hjart ♦4,116	Note that the airstrip is not just "disused". It's completely gone. Like in nothing left.
	2	2019-01-19 21:59	jan_olieslagers	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...
	3	2019-01-19 22:21	Hjart ♦4,116	I did state that this was "bare" (probably a "danism" though) fields. What I meant to say is that this is now farmland with no trace left of any airstrip. Open iD (which will automatically select the most recent imagery for the area) here and you'll see what I mean.
	4	2019-01-19 22:33	jan_olieslagers	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
	5	2019-01-19 23:18	Hjart ♦4,116	"removed" makes good sense to me. The airstrip obviously was removed. If you can marking it "removed", or anything to that effect, in your sources would make good sense too.
	6	2019-01-20 05:22	atcomapper ♦315	For the sake of keeping the discussion in one place, I will quote what I replied to jan_olieslagers in a private message: "Because “Former Airstrip at Bodilster” is NOT the name of this place, just like “Closed Netto” is not the name of a building that used to house a...
66306521 by jan_olieslagers @ 2019-01-14 16:09	1	2019-01-16 10:52	literan ♦6,687	please do not fake airports
64448940 by jan_olieslagers @ 2018-11-13 16:24	1	2018-11-13 19:00	andergrin ♦140	I think Veresoch will be more correct
61828437 by jan_olieslagers @ 2018-08-20 16:07	1	2018-08-20 17:49	sorcrosc ♦412	Permanent or not, it say it is closed from 2009 and I can't find more recent info to think otherwise.
	2	2018-08-20 17:57	jan_olieslagers	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
	3	2018-08-21 21:04	sorcrosc ♦412	Lifecycle prefixes are the formal procedure. See here please: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
60015935 by jan_olieslagers @ 2018-06-20 16:14	1	2018-08-06 20:46	mmd ♦47	http://dulv.de/DULV%20Impressum copyright is incompatible with ODbL. Do you have asked for permission to use this source? Where is this documented?
43263827 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-10-29 11:29	1	2018-07-27 09:42	maraf24 ♦5,256	Deleted.
59663622 by jan_olieslagers @ 2018-06-08 09:59	1	2018-06-10 08:22	pio2_122 ♦1,075	ICAO code has been removed because it doesn't exist... Did you check it on ais.pansa.pl ? I did. This is ex military airport, now it's just training airstrip used by the Air Forces school.
	2	2018-06-10 08:41	jan_olieslagers	OK, thanks.
57717417 by jan_olieslagers @ 2018-04-01 16:58	1	2018-04-01 18:45	SomeoneElse ♦13,362	Who's "we"? OSM's position on names is covered in the wiki here - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only .
	2	2018-04-01 19:09	jan_olieslagers	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 hav...
	3	2018-04-01 19:22	atcomapper ♦315	There already is an access=private tag. It is up to the data user to interpret and display the appropriate tags so that the end user (the pilot in your example) has the correct information. Frankly I do not agree with your story of a qualified pilot finding a random airstrip in OSM and deciding to ...
	4	2018-04-01 19:28	jan_olieslagers	@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 sourc...
	5	2018-04-01 19:42	Hjart ♦4,116	My opinion is: Mappers inventing names is BAD. Airfields and other objects in OSM should be tagged with verifiable official names only. Anything else will eventually lead to confusion. Maps used by aviators should display the content of access tags.
	6	2018-04-01 19:48	jan_olieslagers	@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 nam...
	7	2018-04-01 19:56	Hjart ♦4,116	I also think it's now time to remove "invented name" from other airstrips. I think you'll have to come up with better cope with nameless airstrips. No name is not bad and certainly not "the worst there can be". Not respecting access=private tags etc is worse.
	8	2018-04-01 20:07	jan_olieslagers	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....
	9	2018-04-01 20:08	jan_olieslagers	And what do you mean with "better cope with nameless airstrips"?
	10	2018-04-01 20:11	Hjart ♦4,116	I meant "you'll have to find better ways to cope with nameless airstrips". Inventing names for them is not good and will not prevent cases like the one you gave above.
	11	2018-04-01 20:18	Hjart ♦4,116	I personally think a lot of people will disagree with adding "private" or "public", whatever to names of all aerodromes just to "clear" the way you describe.
	12	2018-04-01 20:19	jan_olieslagers	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 g...
	13	2018-04-01 20:29	Hjart ♦4,116	Yes, I think that "name=" should be tagged only if the airstrip has an actual official name. I researched this airstrip and found that it's private and doesn't actually have an official name. I think inventing one is wrong. The node you mention can be verified by going to http:/...
	14	2018-04-01 20:38	jan_olieslagers	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 s...
	15	2018-04-01 20:43	jan_olieslagers	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.
	16	2018-04-01 20:46	Hjart ♦4,116	Nothing is being "hushed up" here. You invented this name even though you are not the owner or in any anyway affiliated with this particular airstrip, right? Just like you invented names for a gazillion other airstrips around the map? Please note that another mapper (apparently with more ...
	17	2018-04-01 20:50	jan_olieslagers	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 Slag...
	18	2018-04-01 20:51	Hjart ♦4,116	@jan the link given by SomeoneElse says "If something really doesn't have a name, don't add a name to OpenStreetMap" This airstrip doesn't actually have a name, so don't add one.
	19	2018-04-01 20:57	jan_olieslagers	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 - agai...
	20	2018-04-01 20:58	Hjart ♦4,116	Another mapper removed the name you invented for this airstrip (because of lack of verifiability) and I've put the noname=yes tag back. Please respect it
	21	2018-04-01 20:58	jan_olieslagers	(apologies for the typo - s/Stragelse/Slagelse/g)
	22	2018-04-01 20:59	jan_olieslagers	Sorry, I won't - but I will not enter a reversal war either.
	23	2018-04-01 21:03	SomeoneElse ♦13,362	@jan_olieslagers Any name for an object must be verifiable by other mappers - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability for details. Something that you made up isn't a name, it's just a description.
	24	2018-04-01 21:11	jan_olieslagers	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 ... ??
	25	2018-04-01 23:58	Hjart ♦4,116	@jan, Please see https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/62884/inventing-names-for-essentially-unnamed-private-airstrips
	26	2018-04-07 19:27	JJIglesias ♦1,194	My Opinion: Any Airstrip to be "legal" needs some kind of approval by the Aeronautical Authorities; and that Authority publish the location of each one of those airstrips, with certain characterists like longines and orientation of the airstrip. Name is NOT mandatory, but lenght, orientati...
	27	2018-04-07 19:43	jan_olieslagers	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 broad...
57666197 by jan_olieslagers @ 2018-03-30 16:53	1	2018-03-30 20:52	Hjart ♦4,116	This appears to be a one man private strip. I've added info on the source tag.
46579199 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-03-04 18:32	1	2018-03-28 02:04	bxl-forever ♦2,479	Hello, Technically you are right, but normally we are supposed to observe the official spelling: both UrBIS street directory and street signs agree to call it "Michel Angelolaan", even though it should normally be written as one word. I have reverted the change but added the corrected ve...
55241171 by jan_olieslagers @ 2018-01-07 17:18	1	2018-03-11 20:28	trial ♦870	According to http://www.brestaeromodelisme.com/wakka.php?wiki=PresTerrain, it should be rather tagged: leisure=pitch sport=model_aerodrome
	2	2018-03-11 20:39	jan_olieslagers	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 ter...
	3	2018-03-11 21:33	trial ♦870	bonjour, non en fait il semble que la partie ULM soit toujours occasionnellement active, Cf. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2018-March/087958.html, où il est suggéré d'ajouter access=private. Ce que je comprends c'est que c'est la même pi...
52387833 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-09-26 15:35	1	2018-03-02 08:18	Zverik ♦172	Hi, I assume this runway was imported from http://maps.aopa.ru/#lon/31.756748/lat/59.066980/z/13/ll/a/bl/gm/p/7636/mode/r As you can see on the website, there is no runway there: it's just an ad for a hotel nearby, masked as an aerodrome. Which makes me question other edits you've ma...
42247527 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-09-18 13:39	1	2017-12-11 21:33	Poliakoff Mykhailo ♦754	https://www.world-airport-codes.com/ukraine/zhovtneve-air-base-82548.html https://airportguide.com/airport/info/AG3711 ваша назва відсутня у джерелах
42247491 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-09-18 13:37	1	2017-12-11 21:28	Poliakoff Mykhailo ♦754	у зв'язку з знищенням української мови /військовий аеродром Жовтневий / правка ліквідована
53672746 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-11-10 17:25	1	2017-12-04 14:03	tux67 ♦1,938	Hi jan_olieslagers, removing the aeroway=aerodrome from the surrounding shape (which was added by the previous user) might or might not be the right step, but now you left over a shape that has just a name and no landuse or similar relevant information - which is for sure not the intention. I wou...
	2	2017-12-04 18:36	jan_olieslagers	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 ...
	3	2017-12-04 19:24	tux67 ♦1,938	Hi Karel, thanks for the quick response. For now I followed the approach to used the existing way, but I added a fixme tag to the element - will ask one of the guys who created it to have another look, whether it can be optimized. BR to Belgium Stephan
	4	2017-12-04 19:25	tux67 ♦1,938	Forgot to mention ... https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54339824
53470581 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-11-03 07:20	1	2017-11-03 21:04	andergrin ♦140	This field is on the way to be built by industrial buildings.
52107464 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-09-17 01:40	1	2017-10-14 14:22	BohdanKuts ♦49	Hi, jan_olieslagers! Could you, please, provide source of the place which you added in this changeset?
	2	2017-10-14 14:36	jan_olieslagers	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.
	3	2017-10-14 14:40	BohdanKuts ♦49	Do you trust this source of information? It seems to me, that it contains very outdated information (according to the place we are talking about).
	4	2017-10-14 14:46	jan_olieslagers	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 specialis...
	5	2017-10-14 15:00	BohdanKuts ♦49	Thanks for info and quick answers! Will check that place one day.
52112971 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-09-17 09:25	1	2017-09-17 11:34	literan ♦6,687	there's no serodrome there: it's closed several years ago. Now big construction site. Reverting.
	2	2017-09-17 11:36	literan ♦6,687	Also look here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1434653/history#map=15/55.8164/37.4304
	3	2017-09-17 11:42	jan_olieslagers	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.
	4	2017-09-17 12:05	literan ♦6,687	look at my link. was:aeroway=aerodrome (it's the right tag) is there https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
51884415 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-09-09 16:14	1	2017-09-10 17:22	Harald Hartmann ♦827	Hello jan_olieslagers. What is `ctct:email`? Or should it be `contact:email`?
	2	2017-09-14 15:01	jan_olieslagers	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 karlchen9@skynet.be
	3	2017-09-14 15:03	Harald Hartmann ♦827	Mir ist das letztendlich auch egal. Wollte dich nur darauf hinweisen, dass es so im Moment niemand verwenden kann, da der verwendete Key `ctct:email` unbekannt und somit wohl auch von keinem ausgelesen wird/werden kann.
	4	2017-09-14 15:23	jan_olieslagers	OK, klar, vielen Dank! Ich überlege mal... Herzlich!
51455664 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-08-26 10:47	1	2017-08-26 12:14	literan ♦6,687	why do you map helipad like aerodrom??? it's helipad only
43749325 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-11-17 23:10	1	2017-08-24 13:14	flightsimmer ♦1	You deleted information needed by X-Plane scenerydesigners. These keys need to be in place. Thanks.
	2	2017-08-24 16:12	jan_olieslagers	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,
50319628 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-07-16 07:58	1	2017-07-16 09:46	DaveF ♦1,562	Hi Do you have any details for this airstrip. I can find no info.
	2	2017-07-16 10:03	jan_olieslagers	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,
	3	2017-07-17 14:49	SomeoneElse ♦13,362	@jan_olieslagers what's the licence associated with the PDF and where did the information in it come from?
	4	2017-07-17 15:54	jan_olieslagers	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,
	5	2017-07-18 20:04	SomeoneElse ♦13,362	A quick web search of "Britisch Isles Airfield Guide" "pdf" "2013" finds a few candidates, such as http://www.laasdata.com/uploads/The-LAAS-British-Isles-Airfield-Guide.pdf . Is it perhaps one of those? In the absense of any other information we probably can't ...
	6	2017-07-19 10:23	Cebderby ♦299	Visually, the line of T hangars at the west shows it was an aviation site (at the time of the images). Looks like it is a private site known variously as (Wickwar/Yate) Chase Farm (Airstrip), certainly in use 2009-2016 (see https://svmc.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/August-2016.pdf). The E-W run...
43601330 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-11-13 10:44	1	2017-07-18 09:44	Vincent de Phily ♦112	Howdy. Care to comment on http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1068676 ? Thanks.
46211223 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-02-19 10:29	1	2017-03-11 20:52	tuxayo ♦273	Bonjour, il semble y avoir un problème avec la position de l'aérodrome. Où est-il censé être? De plus le lien vers le site web ne fonctionne pas.
	2	2017-03-11 20:58	tuxayo ♦273	Lien qui montre bien l'aérodrome au milieu de l'eau: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46211223#map=13/43.4257/5.0908
	3	2017-07-14 19:10	tuxayo ♦273	Contributeur relancé par MP
	4	2017-07-14 19:11	tuxayo ♦273	Note liée: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/923524
43687908 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-11-16 03:40	1	2017-06-01 05:58	kayle ♦265	Hi, what is source for this aerodrome? Orthophoto is showing nothing like runway. Well, surface near this point has different color, but it is probably only mown area. Different ofthophoto show same surface. And there is OSM note about no aerodrome here, only a field. Thanks
	2	2017-06-01 21:33	jan_olieslagers	It was taken (along with several more) from https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoznam_let%C3%ADsk_na_Slovensku#Letisk.C3.A1 Regards,
	3	2017-06-19 07:35	Martin ♦641	Also please don't put generic name "Letisko" into name tag. It should only be name="Bojničky". It is the same like we don't add "City" to city names, like "Bratislava City". Thank you.
48837668 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-05-20 07:48	1	2017-05-20 16:20	MarcoR ♦516	According to the wiki¹, the local_ref tag should be used for bus stops only. Why don't you use ref or loc_ref tags? ¹ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:local_ref
	2	2017-05-20 18:14	jan_olieslagers	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 P...
46722546 by jan_olieslagers @ 2017-03-09 21:21	1	2017-03-10 15:27	DaveF ♦1,562	Hi Do you have a source for this data?
42929727 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-10-16 05:31	1	2016-12-23 19:17	Rostranimin ♦16	Hi Jan. I stumbled across the Fort Augustus airfield you'd mapped while I was doing something unrelated. Is this is a private strip? All the details I can find on the internet suggest this. I've added 'aerodrome=private' to the node in an attempt to indicate this (although it see...
43795578 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-11-19 10:49	1	2016-11-19 12:24	gpstracks ♦97	Hi The use of ref=* is discouraged. " for an airport code, use a more specific key, such as iata=, icao= and faa=* " http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Daerodrome Please revert. And please explicate the deletion of the tag width=*
43373304 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-11-03 08:44	1	2016-11-07 05:41	stephan75 ♦67	Hallo Jan, ich weiß nicht ob dich schon anders wer angeschrieben hatte, aber deine Änderungen an Flugplätzen sind Thema im dt. OSM-Unterforum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=56248 (ggf. Einloggen dort mit deiner OSM-Kennung)
43285470 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-10-30 15:16	1	2016-10-30 17:42	Hjart ♦4,116	I have moved this a bit SW
42589005 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-10-02 18:42	1	2016-10-03 07:32	Martin ♦641	Ahoj. Prosim davaj popis ku kazdej tvojej zmene. Dakujem.
42149614 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-09-14 13:27	1	2016-09-14 21:26	GinaroZ ♦1,280	Surely this should be the name of the airfield (Strathallan Airfield) instead?
42143193 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-09-14 08:03	1	2016-09-14 16:58	Martin ♦641	Ahoj. Prosim davaj popis ku kazdej sade zmien. Dakujem.
42063453 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-09-10 17:29	1	2016-09-11 18:08	Martin ♦641	Ahoj. Prosim vzdy davaj popis k zmenam ktore si spravil. Dakujem.
42075222 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-09-11 10:31	1	2016-09-11 18:07	Martin ♦641	Ahoj. Skratky do nazvov nepatria. A do nazvu sa dava vlastne meno objektu, nie vseobecne, popisne.
40258266 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-06-24 12:04	1	2016-06-24 21:15	Hjart ♦4,116	Flyvepladsens navn mm var i forvejen angivet på den omgivende polygon. Da det er bedst kun at have info et sted har jeg slettet det punkt du har lavet her (og på flere andre flyvepladser også). En søgning på danske flyvepladser og lufthavne angivet i OSM kan ses p&ari...
40131958 by jan_olieslagers @ 2016-06-19 09:44	1	2016-06-19 11:03	Hjart ♦4,116	Holsted Flyveplads (EKHL) befinder sig ved Grindstedvej 26, 7 km nord herfor. På Geodatastyrelsens fotos kan man se græsbanen og et par gule flyvinger der stikker ud af laden.