Netjes zo, welbedankt!

Thank you indeed! It is nice to agree :)

As far as I can see, the aerodrome remains active, you should not have removed it. Please repair the damage.
https://www.hultsfredairport.se/information-flygflight/

https://aterriza.org/villena-emerg/

Please stop removing the aeroway=aerodrome tag. Veuillez cesser d'enlever le tag aeroway=aerodrome. Merci.

ok, adjusted, thanks.

Regarding "HLS1": how can this be an aerodrome? Where is it documented? At best there is a helipad, but even that is not discernable.

why did you remove the LP69 local_ref? It comes from the eAIP!

Ah, that's a well-known trap. The site you named is notoriusly unreliable, due to their "creative" solutions. In this case they took over the internal reference of another aerodrome repository (to which I also contribute): https://ourairports.com/airports/GB-0843/
With your leave, I'll remove the reference from OSM.
And no, it seems unlikely that this modest farm strip has any other function.
Greetings!

It is nice agree! Still, where does that reference come from? It does not look like anything I've seen before.
Kind regards!

Where does that GB-0843 reference come from? It seems to identify the "aerodrome" rather than its runway, see node/7525418680.

The one thing I changed is to add tag aeroway=heliport to the total area of the museum, way/1285803622
It is important that runways should always be associated with an aerodrome, be it aeroway=aerodrome or heliport or airstrip, because flight plans include aerodromes, not runways.
For as much as I am concerned, the database is now fine in this area.

Thank you! I would then suggest to create a proper Heliport - IMHO we cannot have runways without an aerdrome associated because flight planners know aerodromes, not runways.

Thanks! I tweaked some minor parameters.

Is the aerodome completely closed? According to en:wikipedia, Avinor closed it to commercial aviation, but recreational use remains possible. Local confirmation welcome!

Again, I do believe the aerodrome is disused, no argument there. And yes, it is dangerous to rely on www imagery, it is never completely up to date.

AAAARRGH so you mean the aerodrome closed? I really understood you meant the changeset had been closed, which left me much confused.

However, what you did is not the best idea, in my (not so very) humble opinion. I will gladly believe that the aerodrome closed, but instead of removing it you had better added "closed:" or "disused:" tagging, that would have avoided re-adding the field, as I am sure may now happen.
Unless you dissuade me, I intend to re-add the field, properly tagged as being disused.
Kind regards from far-away Portugal!

So you removed this little aerodrome? Why?

¡Gracias!

Where does that code ES0213 for the aerodrome come from? I can find no reference. And anyway, it should be associated with the "aerodrome" rather than with the runway.