Gvardeyskoe Air Base was already known, as relation/13923241. way/101935517 is a double entry, and should be removed.

Is there really an aerodrome? Excuse me, but looking on from afar I cannot help wondering if this entry is phantasy, or wishful thinking.

Is this really an aerodrome? Satellite images show only rogh terrain, no runway, no hangar, ...?

Thanks for the invitation, and thanks for thinking positively, much appreciated! Unfortunately calls don't work very well for me, my hearing is far from perfect, I have difficulty to stay concentrated. Feel free to mail me though, at karel ddoott adams aatt edpnet ddoott be
Kindest regards!

I am afraid I do not see your point. Length can (and, ideally, should) be given with a length=tag, which can be set for an area just as well as for a line. As for the magnetic heading, it is variable anyway, given the variance in magvar, the the ref=tag gives an indication. And if really wanted, the exact magnetic heading can be given in a separate tag; I have seen this done in Poland, probably based upon info of dlapilota website.

Roads (and railways) can be grouped together, to create routes. Runways cannot. If once the runways is defined as an area, there is zero added value or information in adding it a second time, as a way or line.

I will not go to war over it, in any case. But what Jeppesen does is little relevant for OSM - they deal with pilot's info, we offer geographical information.

Laissez tel quel, même si ce n'est pas parfait. J'essaierai de me rappeler, si jamais le point se ré-actualise.

C'est une bonne idée de contacter les gestionnaires du site basulm, mais ma remarque était plus générale: il y a beaucoup de répertoires de terrains d'aviation, pas seulement basulm. C'est pourquoi j'aurais préféré qu'il reste quelque mémoire dans OSM. Mais ce n'est certainement pas catastrophique non plus, on peut bien laisser tel quel.

Quant au "merci": il s'appliquait aux conversations passées, dont le ton poli et constructif m'a beaucoup plu. N'y cherchez pas plus que cela!
Bàv,Karel (pas né Francophone...)

Bonsoir, et merci de discuter en courtoisie!
L'ennui est que le terrain est toujours mentionné comme étant actif, par example sur basulm.ffplum.fr; ainsi on risque de le voir ajouté de nouveau.
Mieux vaudrait de le laisser en place, mais en changeant les "tags": p.e. "disused:aeroway=aerodrome"; ou d'ajouter un "closed=yes"; cela éviterait d'éventuelles confusions.

Inutile de dire que vous bonnes intentions sont reconnues, et appreciées!

Bàv,
Karel ADAMS

Next please do not bluntly erase the entry - adding a "closed" tag is much more informational :(

Thank you, my dear. I must admit I had quietly begun to develop such a feeling. Sincere apologies! Feel free to revert, if you haven't, already.

La France ne dispose que de 26x26 codes OACI.... Voir aussi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_airport_code#Pseudo_ICAO-codes
Bàv,

Hm, thanks for explaining. Be warned that the source you mentioned is quite unreliable, and hasn't been updated for many years. Be more careful please - not everything you find on the www is dependable! For list the French fields, better to consult basulm.ffplum.fr

LF0456 is NOT an icao code!

Thanks for your comment; it seems you acted in good faith, but were following an erroneous source. Really, there cannot exist a runway identification "D".
This was once mapped as runway 01/19 and I could well ive with that - official documents should point out whether it still serves as a runway.
If so, then it is "runway 01/19" ; if not, then it is "taxiway D". I suppose the latter is correct, otherwise the "D" would not be given at all.

Ce n'est pas mal - mais pourquoi enlever le "name="? Au moins il faudrait un "description=", p.e. "Piste privée de l'Emonière".

Regarding the "aeródromo": is this really an active airfield? Should we perhaps not rather consider it an "airstrip", used mainly or even exclusively for recreational aviation? The runways is short, infrastructure is limited... Or it might even be "only" for r/c models?

Is this changeset based upon local survey? I live far away, but all sources show that this old airfield is closed, and the land under redevelopment?
I intend to mark all aeroways as "historic:", please comment.

Icao codes are in four letters, check (for example) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_airport_code . The source that you mention is simply wrong.