Andere solche Gelände sind gemapt mit "aeroway=airstrip".
Ich stimme gerne zu, "access=private" kann und soll man ggf. setzen; und wen eine(r) das nicht respektiert so ist es nicht unsere Schuld.
Fr.Gr.,

As a further illustration, an excerpt from our own wiki (osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon):
"a multipolygon relation can have any number of ways in the role outer (the outline) and any number of ways in the role inner (the holes), and these must somehow form valid rings to build a multipolygon from" and that is a long way from what you have been doing. Thanks for thinking it over.

That sounds like you feel offended, and such was not my intention. Apologies!
That said, I was quite unhappy with your actions. There should be no need to map a simple aerodrome like this as a relation. A "way" would be simpler and clearer, and easier to maintain. Also, I have an impression you are doing a great effort to make the field appear correctly in the visual map, but that is an incorrect approacyh. We should NOT "map for the renderer" as it iscalled.
I will not act further on this area before I have heard from the Data Working Group, with whom I have had excellent and constructive communications in the past.
Regards from Belgium,

I don't like this kind of discussion; for me the Village Green in Appleby is the Appleby Village Green, and the pier in Dover Harbour is the Dover Harbour Pier. But you are not the first to make this kind of remark and it's not worth arguing - hope you can live with the changes I made.

De nieuwe locatie komt, naar mijn beste godsvrucht en vermogen :) , overeen met de plaats waar de boot aanlegt. Want daar gaat het toch maar om?
Beste groet,

okee, weg ist er! Vielen Dank,
Karel

Hallo, schönen guten Tag!
My first idea was to entirely remove this way, because it was largely a double for way/492537654. Then I thought it would be better to leave it, but as little visibly as possible - the "fencing" information might well be worth keeping.
Are you acquainted with the local situation? I am certainly not, admittedly. Perhaps we need to adjust the boundaries of the aerodrome area as they are presently mapped?
Thank you very much for opening discussion - I was hoping for that.
M.fr.Gr. / Kind regards from Haacht,
Karel ADAMS

way/233857737 was military grounds and presumably still is, but it never was an aerodrome. Still, way/65369074 (which contained all the aeronautical data for this active military aerodrome) has been and remains removed, with no legitimate reason in sight. Fellow mapper 0M1keE0 promised me in a private communication to look into correction, but I can see nothing to that effect.

:) 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

Ok, no problem, such things can happen. As long it gets corrected, and politelty discussed, all is very much ok. Thank you sincerely!
Karel ADAMS, Haacht, BE

This looks very correct to me, thank you very much!

Fair enough, Sir. Thanks for polite discussion, and for first talking then acting.
Kindly yours, Karel ADAMS

Dear, I consider it improper to call such an aerodrome an "airport" - in general, only US'ans do this, apparently unable to differentiate. However, if you have an official source for Rochester to be called an "airport" then please feel free to revert.
Kind regards, Karel ADAMS

It does help to make Danmark a white spot on the world map, yes. If that's really what you want.

And if you behave like an Ober... than you really cannot complain about being called one. Openstreetmap is about collaboration, not about setting individual exclusives. Bye bye! You won't hear from me again. Nor will I bother about your precious white spot on the world map. Have it all to your precious self!

Phrases like "I will not let you" do not help either, in fact they make me very angry. You asked for it.

No probelem, dear Mr Oberrsturmbannfuehrer, have it all your own way! (but no, I had not checked who created the buildings. My bad, I suppose) I did my humble best to improve the database, but of course you know better!

No I am not.
I made that edit to make very sure you were following up. Worked well!
Feel free to revert.
Please respond to my other remark.

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. I am afraid I will give up on mapping aerodromes, at least in Danmark.

Yes, I thought so. Still, as it is still mentioned in the AIP, I intend to re-add it, but with some mention of "closed". Do you agree?
(and btw, thanks for quick and clear reply!)
Kind regards,
Karel

Dear, why did you remove the Hvar/Jelsa seaplane base/terminal? The AIP still lists it as active?!
Regards,
Karel