Thank you, @Burrado!

Ah, thank you, I was already wondering. I'll tag it as "disused" so that the same mistake doesn't occur again.
Kind regards from tropical Portugal!

Why add a second aerodrome descriptive? There is only one aerodrome, as far as I can see.

It seems to me that this changeset does not correspond to reality... Failing response from the author, I vote for revering it completely.

Well, if it is no longer an aerodrome, then the proper handling is to tag both the aerodrome and the runway with "disused" - this will avoid others adding it again.

1) there is a clear pointer to the reference in the source= of the aerodrome
2) if you look at satellite imagery, the texture of this little area is quite different from all the rest. This makes it more likely that it is indeed an aerodrome.
It seems however clear that it is an extremely limited aerodrome, both in dimensions and in facilities; perhaps it only hosts paragliding or pendular ("trike") ultralights.

Thanks very much. And yes, the aeroplane at mid-runway is obvious proof, I ought to have observed that before making comments. Sorry!
I have now added node/13907904324, to make this airstrip available to route planners - those do not go from runway to runway, they go from aerodrome to aerodrome. Feel free to modify it as you see appropriate! And by the way, I used to be a pilot, but would have thought twice before landing my humble OO-G86 here! Kind regards,

Regarding way/1304615560 , which you tagged as a runway: is this really in use for aviation? It seems a bit queer, with absolutely no other infrastructure to be discerned...

Nice to agree! Greetings from sunny hot Portugal!

Good job! Merci beaucoup!

And by the way, how can a facebook page ever be "official"?

check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottingham_(Tollerton)_Airport: "the airport continues to operate to rotary traffic."
The operators' website announces similarly.

Nicht voellig "reverted", es steht noch etwas Dreck. Vielleicht war es witzig gemeint, ich aber siehe nur Vandalismus.

Thanks for elaborate and firendly discussion - this is the right way to achieve progress! And yes, indeed, the two nodes under discussion would be - for so far as I can see, and judge - better tagged with "aeroway=threshold". According to our wiki, "aeroway=airstrip" is to be used as an alternative to "aeroway=aerodrome" for very simple aerodromes, with only a single runway and little more infrastructure. Most kindly!

This changeset makes improper use of the tag "aeroway=airstrip" at both ends of the 15/33 runway. I intend to remove all tags from both nodes, they do not add useful information.

Why tag this aerodrome as disused? If Wikipedia is to be believed, the airfield is operational.

Excuse me if this sounds rude, but it looks "somewhat difficult to imagine" to see a runway at this location. What were you trying to accomplish? I'd like to be of help, but feel inclined to remove this database entry.

Obrigado :) !

This Aerodromo de Salceda, is it still active? It does not look like that, on satellite imagery.

Netjes zo, welbedankt!