Are you sure there is a heliport here? It seems difficult to imagine. I intend to remove.

I am still unhappy with the "landuse=commercial" tag, this is normally used for shopping malls and such. Isn't "access=private" better suited to what you mean to say? Plus perhaps some kind of "landuse=recreational" or similar.
Regards,

Thanks for quick reply, obrigado! Should we then not tag the relation with construction:aeroway=aerodrome?Cumprimentos,

Must I understand that this aerodrome is no longer operational?

Merci beaucoup!

Excuse me for writing in English. It is not "correct" to tag a runway as an airstrip, cfr. aeroway=airstrip
Also, this change does not really add new information, I am afraid I intend to entirely remove your additions, they only burden our infrastructure without adding any value.
Thanks for your efforts, though!
Kind regards,

The addition of at the least the aerodrome is madness, or vandalism. I intend to revert, if the "creator" doesn't show the common sense of doing so.

Runway is tagged twice as an aeroway, which is confusing to say the least. Is it active or not?

Tout d'abord, merci de votre réponse rapide et polie. C'est beaucoup apprecié!
Cela étant dit, les terrains d'hélico sont un peu vaguement descrits, et je ne vous fais pas de reproches. bien au contraire.
Juste comme un aérodrome contient au moins une piste, un héliport devrait compter au moins un "helipad". Mais dans le cas des héliports, on est souvent un peu moins rigide, et se contente de mentionner soit l'un soit l'autre. Dans les cas présent, il y a un code pseudo-OACI de part de la ffplum, qui s'accosie naturellement a un aérodrome, ici un héliport. Donc un héliport devrait etre présent, dans mon humble opinion. Comme dans le cas des "airstrips", aérodromes minimum, on pourrait créer un "way" pour le héliport, et un node pour le hélipad, ou (probablement plus logique) vice versa. Mais le "local_ref" devrait en tout cas s'associer avec un héliport, pour moi. Qu'est-ce que tu dis :) ?

Pourquoi changer aeroway=heliport en aeroway=helipad?. Ne pas oublier: "Distinguer un heliport ( ~ aerodrome) d'un helipad ( ~ piste)"

cfr. icao=*#False_sources

Thank you, but what registry are you consulting? As far as I know there is no authoritative listing of active aerodomes in the UK, I should be glad to learn of one. That said, tagging it as disused is, for the time being quite acceptable to me. Thanks indeed!

Would that runway be in active use? It looks rather faded, in satellite imagery. If not, I'd modify the tag to "disused:aeroway=runway". If yes, we need to add some aerodrome descriptive, minimally a node with "aeroway=airstrap" and "name=Dunsilly Airstrip" or such.

A 1re vue, c'est impeccable maintenant. Un tout grand merci!

Thanks for your efforts. Your addtion of way/1313865372 is unfortunate, it is a double entry! We already had the aerodrome neatly given in way/206012516. I therefore intend to remove your addtition.

Merci! Meilleures salutations!

Aerodrome deja connu dans le "way" 42019316. Eviter les infos doubles, svp.

Would you have more information about this aerodrome? Is it still in use for flying? If so, what kind of flying? Paragliding, perhaps? Or do people carry their microlight planes there on a trailer?

Please do not bluntly removed aerodromes when closed - I was near to re-adding it. Better to tag as disused:aeroway or even historic:aeroway, so as to leave some memory

Yes I did many more edits like this.
No I cannot be absolutely sure.
Still I did check satellite imagery, and it looks like a runway not right above the river but rather just next to it, as is not unusual for runways - such places are little useable for agriculture, so that farmers sometimes rent them out at favourable rates.
However, if you have local information, which I admittedly have not, please do improve on our database as you see appropriate!
Also, my source was already indicated at creation time. If you need the full detail, surf to https://ourairports.com/airports/AT-0017/changes.html
M.fr.Gr.,