Stéphane bonjour, et bien merci de ta communication. Dans mon humble opinion, il ne peut y avoir de piste sans "terrain aviatique", un peu comme il ne peut y avoir de gare sans rails. Mais pour reduire la visibilité, l'on pourrait bien changer le généraliste "aeroway=aerodrome" par le plus humble "aeroway=airstrip" comme c'est le cas pour maint ulmodrome, en France surtout mais aussi ailleurs.
Et il me semble bien approprié d'ajouter un "access=private".
Qu'en pensez-vous?

The list at the CAA is not decisive - Romania (like many countries) has plenty of airfields not mentioned by their CAA. I am willing to accept that the aerodrome is no longer in active use, but some memory of it should remain in our database as long as it is visible in the scenery. I will re-tag accordingly

Ok, I will update other sources, then. Thank you very much for correct and polite exchange!
(it is a nuisance that these satellite images always lag behind in time, this makes local information so much better than my poor armchair mapping!)

Is this a new airfield being constructed, or an old one under re-activation? Satellite imagery offers little help, but that is always a bit out of date. Thanks for clarifying, and if a realistic name could be added, that would be nice, too.

If you can make out the German, may wish to consult https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=71961&p=2
It seems "maproulette" is behind all this.

There are some who defend area:aeroway=runway but there are opponents too. I for myself do not see any added value there.
Excuse me for saying so openly: I see even less use in the addition of relations. They make the database top-heavy and are confusing to many; and again there is no added value.
An aerodrome is an area of land (or water) with one or more runways on it, and perhaps helipads and taxiways and hangars and what not. But let us keep it as simple as that: an area with accesories on it. No need to go beyond.
Also: all things should be in the database one and exactly one time. So if we already have an aeroway=runway, I see no use in adding an area:aeroway=runway.
Thanks for open discussion! Kind regards from the North/Migliori Riccordi!
Karel ADAMS

Thank you very much! I intend to add a little descriptive, taking care to keep things as discreet as I can manage. Migliori ricordi!

Thanks for prompt reply. You do seem to be missing some of the finer points of mapping aerodromes, though. Please make a firm distinction between an aerodrome and a runway - even if in this particular case they are almost identical. Allow me to recommend consulting the wiki, if in doubt.

It is strange to come across this airfield, it is mentioned in no list or database that I know of. More information is very welcome: formal name? Operator? Current state of activity?

Why was the airstrip removed? It is clearly visible on satellite images.
Perhaps it is disused, in that case ot would be preferable to add a corresponding tag. Removing elements visible on the terrain is considered vandalism.

Again, thank you! I have slightly updated the entry, based upon your information. For an example of a well-mapped aerodrome, you could take a look at relation/6176207 - I have visited that place a couple of times. Both the airfield and the way it is mapped are excellent - except that I think relations should be avoided where possible.

By the way, please also be aware that we only map "what is visible on the ground". So that, as long as no aerodrome is visible, we should not be adding one to our map - whatever its classification. At best, it could be added as "under construction" - we have a definition of life-cycle tagging, somewhere, but to my knowledge this is not used very intensively for aerodromes.

Dear, thank you for quick reaction, and for open and constructive discussion.
Allow me to refer to the wikipedia definition of an "airport": "An airport is an aerodrome with extended facilities, mostly for commercial air transport". Will there really be ticket sales here? Luggage belts? I seriously doubt it.
Of course you may have been misled by the Hungarian-language document, or by the stupid US'ans who call every airfield an "airport" but both are really incorrect. An airfield it could be, if there is some kind of hangars and other infrastructure, but the word "airport" should really be reserved for places like List-Ferencs airport near Budapest.
Kind regards from far-away Belgium - and my warmest wishes in this very dreary midwinter festival!
Karel ADAMS
karel.adams at edpnet dot be

No, I think I was tricked by a school youngster, like happened elsewhere recently. I cannot see the history, but I seem to remember I created this to replace an existing entry, probably one with "aeroway=aerodrome". Feel free to adjust/remove as you see fit.

You have found that "removing" is not effective, why do you keep on trying?
Perhaps, if it ever recurs, a better idea is to tag it as "historical:" or "was:" - other well-meaning mappers might then be aware of the situation.

That depends on the definition of an airstrip. For me it goes along the lines of "a minimal aerodrome, with little or no permanent facilities, and probably used only occasionally or seasonally". For the definition of "aerodrome", kindly refer to the icao documents.

Of course you are totally free to remap the runway at a location you consider more correct - I promise I'll be less pecky than you.
Then again, the site is indeed heavily dependent on one single source, and one of poor reputation - I did tell the owner/maintainer. And surely we cannot and won't directly copy from there, for reasons of copyright; still, they are not liars. Aren't you taking the OSM guidelines beyond their intended meaning?

?? Incomprehensible. It feels more and more like you are on a personal witch-hunt.
Just in case you are not an aviator: there is nothing unusual in shifting grass runways a couple of yards either way, to allow the grass to recover.

You must have Bing imagery other than what I see, then. I checked again and it looks exactly right. Can screen copy if you really won't believe me.

I will remove the offending reference, Though I am not convinced the site could not be used as source for inspiration, or hints on possible locations of aerodromes, either past or present.
But the images both on Bing and Esri show the runway quite clearly, just next to the road, and with a turning loop at the NE end. Moreover, there is a N/S taxiway on the East side of the field, leading to what looks very much like a hangar, or even two.