I found those data at uk_airfield_guide, run by Mr. Richard F, who is a firm acquaintance by now. We do not like that site, I well remember how you warned against mentioning it in any way on OSM and I carefully respect that. Still I trust Dick to do his homework right, and be sure that I checked satellite images myself before adding the strip to OSM.
That said, you seem to live nearer than myself - did I tell you I moved to Portugal last summer? - and local info is certainly very worthwhile. Please do feel free to tag the airstrip as "disused" if you think it is - I wouldn't be surprised at all.

They are part of the runway, yes indeed. Im my opinion, we should map the full length of runway as a runway, then add markings to it as appropriate for thresholds. A displaced threshold is, on the ground, nothing more than a stripe of paint, after all.
NB the matter has been discussed before, but I do not remember the outcome.

Andy, it is not the first time that I come across like that. I am ready to apologise for that! I think it comes from my habit - quite unusual these days, I know! - to think matters over, thoroughly, before and during action. If you can hand me any good argument I will be ready to consider and discuss it, and it is not impossible that you convince me. I really am open to correction, and you could see that from consulting my exchanges with various other mappers. Up to now you have offered nothing better than "it has always been like this...", it takes more than such old-wives-talk to convince me.
NB have you seen my comments at [url]osm.wiki/Talk:Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_war[/url]? Perhaps the DWG could comment there.
And by the way, I do look in the mirror quite frequently, at least when shaving - and I am not ashamed in the least of my efforts to keep the OSM database in the best possible shape. However - again! - for the sake of peace and good will, I promise to not touch Ukrainian aerodromes again until further notice. Is that not what you requested?

Andy, thanks for the reply, I was beginning to wonder if any would come - and not replying at all is quite rude to me, we all have our delicate points. I tried the place that you named but it seems to be a telegram group, creating a telegram account is on my todo-list but not a high priority. Allow me to point out that the state of the mapping of aerodromes in Ukraine is an utter mess, various people have tried to obscure aeronautical information in various ways - it looks like a flock of very nervous very individualistic birds flew over an ant colony :) Now this could be the result of a policy agreed upon by the local community, but I find that hard to imagine. Anyway the point is moot: I have decided not to touch aerodromes in Ukraine for the time being - the more so that I see modest efforts by others to put things back in order.
NB My edit was left untouched, so it would seem that the local community cannot be bothered over much. Neither has anyone of them contacted me.
Regards,

And what do you mean by a "linear runway"? Again, our very dear own wiki opens by defining a runway as an area.

Andy,
1) Let us not squibble on words.
2) I never will attempt to provoke anyone - I only do my best to keep our database complete and correct and coherent. Rebuke me if you really will.
3) As soon as you can formally demonstrate the wishes of the so-called "local community" (of which I have no sign of existance!) - and not those of one singular mapper - I will be happy to oblige.

Further: while local arguments and factors may be relevant for certain matters, the mapping of aeronautical data should be universal. The sky and the rules of ICAO are the same everywhere.

I agree with @Edelsalami - it is ridiculous and stupid to believe that the big bad bear will ever depend in the least bit on information that can freely be manipulated by anyone, without any trace of identity or locality. Sheer madness!
I for one will NOT refrain from working on the OSM database, to the best of my ability, neither in Ukraine nor in Patagonia.

Thanks for adding this runway, there was however no need to add it twice; I took the liberty to remove the double. Have you any idea what kind of flying happens here?

Yes, indeed, tatsaechlich :)
Removing a thing that has at one time been there is never the best idea, it might be re-added which could even lead to a revert-war.
As for the land-use: in my very personal opinion, "grass" is not a land-use, it is a surface". Land-use can be "industrial" or "commercial" or "military" or such. But that is an old discussion, and I won't deeply engage in it.
M.fr.gr.,
Karel ADAMS

The aerodrome was already mapped, as way/425941434. Please avoid double information.

Next time, please add a "closed" or "disused" tag somehow - I had almost re-added the aerodrome.

No reaction after a fair time of waiting, I'll clean up by myself.

Yes, I must agree to all those points. And yet... I would have preferred "no:aerodrome". Still, as long as I keep my periodical checks running, any future return would be soon detected, so we are on the safe side for now. Thanks again!

Thank you, Mateusz, but no:
1/ I am not totally convinced that it does not exist, I would want to have verified on site before doing that - and I live a long way off.
2/ removing aerodromes (real or not) is in my experience a poor approach: it is an invitiation to re-add them, possibly by a different mapper. Better to leave some trace, so that the history remains visible. That is what I tried to do, with a twist of humour. More formal would have been a "no:aeroway=aerodrome" as suggested in the wiki.

Daar heb ik ook al de hele tijd mijn twijfels bij. Ik _denk_ dat ik er een apart terrein van zou maken. area=yes, landuse=industrial, operator=belgocontrol, comment=Luchtverkeerscontrolecentrum Steenokkerzeel o.i.d. Bemerk dat Skeyes enkel een handelsnaam is, net als Coca Cola of Mercedes :) maar dus officieel niets te betekenen heeft.

Heel graag! Ik ging eraan beginnen, maar reeds bij een eerste blik werd het me duidelijk dat het een behoorlijk groot werk wordt, waarvoor ik nauwelijks de tijd/energie kan opbrengen. Ga uw gang, dus, en vraag gerust om details - nog tot eind juni kom ik daar elke woensdag voorbij, om in Kortenberg de trein te nemen. Ook: reeds bedankt voor het terugdraaien van die "aparte luchthaven", mijn statistieken zien er alweer wat beter uit! Hartelijk, Karel ADAMS

Okee, ik vat het aan, het zal wel in stapjes gebeuren want het zijn hier drukke dagen. Dank voor de positieve instelling!

Het is een beetje ongelukkig om dit gebiedje als een aparte luchthaven te mappen. Het lijkt me veel meer aangewezen om de huidige mapping van de "echte" luchthaven uit te breiden tot aan de draadafsluiting, dus inclusief de Ringbaan.

Nogal ongelukkig om hier een aparte luchthaven te mappen :( Zouden we niet beter het hele gebied achter de afrastering mappen als luchthaven, inclusief de Ringbaan?Misschien zelfs het terrein van Belgocontrol/Skeyes er ook bij?

The comparison with highways (or railways) is false. Runways cannot be joined into routes.