Tried to get the runway references correct. It is a hopeless mess, though - feel free to roll back.

Guilty, your honour. I was not happy with that tagging, but it was the least unfortunate I could think of. Be aware that what you have reverted to is even less acceptable: we now have two runways, where there is in fact obnly a single one; and both parts are 670m long, while in fact 670m is the total length of both pieces combined. I leave it up to you to think of a better solution.

Please also be aware that I am using iD only for lack of anything better - and I am very much aware that it is far rom perfect.

I removed a tag that was highly unlikely to be correct. If you feel that action was incorrect then feel free to revert it. If you see room for further improvement then please feel free, also. But please stop lecturing me - I am not here to be lectured, I am doing my little best effort to improve on our database. Either the removal of the aeroway=runway was correct or it wasn't - and I have no interest beyond. Remember this is a collective effort?

Sincere apologies, but you ARE trying my patience. I only wanted to question the aeroway=runway on this road. That is basically wrong until the contrary be shown. For all the rest, feel free to have your way. And, err, when you mean "re-add" then please do not write "readd" - that is open to double interpretation, to say the least. Kindly yours but slightly irritated,

Thanks for polite comment - but what is the relevance? I meant and still mean to express doubts about this bit of public road being a runway of any kind - please elaborate?
Also, please do not tell me what I missed to read - how can you tell?

That story is well known to me, but I do not accept it. I strongly adhere to the priciple of "One landscape element, one osm entry" (though exceptions are possible). Neither can I accept that runways should not be mapped as areas - there is not a single good argument for that. Except for the analogy with way= and railway= but there is no comparison, because runways are not combined to form routes.

This does not look like like an active aerodrome, looking a satellite imagery. Either it was an aerodrome, long ago, then it should be abandoned:aeroway=aerodrome, or it is under construction, which we map with projected:aeroway=aerodrome. Please update or advise.

The airport is now mapped twice, which is not good. One of the two entries should be removed.

What is the added value of a multipolygon with one single member??

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 always reliable.
Kind regards from Haacht, Brabant, Belgium.

It may well be a private runway, but if so then it is part of an aerodome/airstrip, equallly private. Please add the relevant information, the present mapping is incongruent.

Thank you for quick reaction - unfortunately it does not answer my question. Or I should have missed something, which is not impossible :) Please explain in more detail? I am concerned about the "runway" as described in way/971646619 .
[url]way/971646619#map=17/56.36725/9.06691[/url]

What is this runway used for? Runways are supposed to be part of some kind of aviation terrain... Isn't this place better tagged with "leisure=pitch" plus "sport=free-flying" or such?

Da's allemaal dik in orde, dank voor de zorg! Karel

Groot gelijk. Het lijkt me trouwens bijzonder vreemd dat ik dit zou gedaan hebben, ik bekijk nooit sportterreinen - behalve dan voor luchtsporten.

I will retag as "historic" - some might well say it has to be removed except if anything visble remains on the terrain.

Perhaps add a tag "operator=Micoperi SpA" or such? It is strange, though, to find so very little information about this company on the www, except their own website.

OK, d'accord, je ne suis pas surpris. Je vois seulement confirmation qu'il ne fallait pas enlever la mention de l'aérodrome, bien mieux serait de le mentionner avec un 'tag' de fermé ou pareil; et d'ajouter une petite note explicative.
Báv, (et toute mon appréciation pour votre Néerlandais! :) ),
Karel ADAMS

Allow me to strongly protest: the aerodrome is mentioned in the AIP so that legally it does exist. Removing it is far too radical, better might be to add some tag to indicate non-operational status.