Naming private locations (airstrips specifically)

Hi! I recently made some changes (improvements?) to a private airstrip, including adding a name. Another user later removed the name because it’s private.

It seemed to me that having the name for private locations would make sense - people may want to travel to that place and the name is fairly important metadata to find it - is this not the case? If so, when should I be adding/not adding names? I couldn’t find anything on the Wiki under either the naming tag or airstrip tag.

That matter is quite variable. In certain regions ( UK, Scandinavia, for example) some editors are very strict on “following the rules” and the rules say that the “name” tag should only be used for a name that is either officially published, or visibly announced on site. But in Eastern and Southern Europe, nobody seems to care.

For myself I see no reason to apply this “rule” so vigourously for aviation terrains - after all we have no “rules”, we have “common practices” and “guidelines” in the wiki. But by way of compromise, I have sometimes used “description=airstrip near xyz, possibly private” or such.

We don’t want made-up names or descriptive names in OSM. If there’s an unnamed pond behind the Miller farm, then we won’t name that “Miller Farm Pond” just because it looks pretty - we need the pond to be actually known by that name. But in your particular case, the name can easily be verified; the airstrip is known by that name, listed in directories and so on. Hence I would say the name is a valuable addition to OSM. I notice that the name has meanwhile been removed twice, and have added a changeset comment myself asking for the reason. I’d say if the mapper cannot give a good reason we should add the name back in, but let’s give him a little time to reply.

Maybe loc_name ( might be an alternative…

Jan, woodpeck thanks - both of your comments align with what I would expect, and how I have gone about the edits I’ve made since signing up which is good to hear!

PHerison - certainly that would be true but in this case although the airstrip is private that’s certainly what it’s widely known as (see this website for example.

@woodpeck: many thanks - your CS-comment seems very correct, or at least I can fully subscribe it.

@Slord6: be careful with the reference you cited - I have been severely chided by a DWG*-collaborator for relying on it - it is indeed largely based on one certain source of information, which is not very well-reputed… But I must say I trust the website operator (with whom I regularly communicate) to do his research very thoroughly, whence my confidence in the information presented.

*DWG: Data Working Group - a team of volunteers who take up the burden of arbitrating conflicts between editors - usually to little thanks.

Ah, ok - thanks, I’ll keep that in mind. In this instance I know the nearby area fairly well so I’m confident in the information I’ve added for the airfield

Local information is the best we can have. I sometimes feel guilty for being “only” an armchair mapper - but then again, if one sees the woeful way some “aviation terrains” have been mapped… Still, I often follow my changes with a request for local information.