In my area (Arboga, Sweden) there is an old military airfield, which now is only used by an air club during summer months. Occasionality the nearby industry use it for air freight, and by private small aircraft’s use it for training starts and landings.
But OSM shows taxiways and aprons like it was a many years ago. Most of these are nowadays not used by aircraft’s, and probably could not be used, because they are not maintained any longer.
So the question is should these not used taxiways and aprons, be changed to some other type? Small roads or something else?
Tag with either disused:aeroway=taxiway (I think this is the preferred option) or with aeroway=taxiway plus disused=yes. Same for aprons.
Could you indicate what aerodrome you are talking about?
PS be aware of the common newcomers’ error: you should not want to “map for the renderer”. What the vanilla map shows is of secondary importance, first and above all we want to have the database ok. What the renderer makes of it is not our concern, as mappers.
PS welcome to this forum, but please take care of language - the plural of “aircraft” is “aircraft” however bizarre it may seem, but not “aircrafts” and still less “aircraft’s”. Yes, English is a funny language, at closer looks, it really is
First of all my apologies for making you feel guilty about your level of English. I wanted to suggest a little improvement, far from me to accuse or belittle you. And indeed one sees much much worse than what you posted! Needless to say your message was perfectly clear.
I am not sure whether your changes have already “trickled” through the renderer - it has become sluggish, the few last months - but all that I can see looks quite okay. You might perhaps wish to adjust the runway - didn’t I understand that only part of it remains in use? It may be a good idea to cut up the runway into parts used and unused, and tag each accordingly. But honestly, I don’t see much added value.
Above all, my sincere thanks for your efforts, and for polite and constructive discussion!
Ok, about remarks of my language. No apologies needed. I know my English is not so good.
The runway has recently been changed. The south threshold has been moved 300m north, and the runway is now 1700m long. But all current satellite images shows the runway as it was before the change. Until these images are updated, maybe it’s better not to adjust the runway length?
There are many examples of runways with “overrun extensions”; consider ways 870571863 and 870571864 for just one example.
The phrase “if the runway is 1700 m long” is ambiguous: it may refer to the area of asphalt visible on the ground, but it can also refer to the length that is available to pilots.
My idea would be to have separate “way” entries for the active and non-active parts of the runway, tagged accordingly; and they could be joined into a relation, which could perhaps be an “area”.
Perhaps a good comparison is Ursel Airbase, way 176017986: it is owned and kept up by the military, though they very rarely use it - keeping it up is part of NATO obligations, as I understand. It is used in the weekend for recreational flying, equally with only a limited part of the runway being in active use. Markings on the runway are clearer there, though, the unused parts marked with ICAO standard white crosses.
Also, I think satellite images are not the best reference - as stated, they tend to be well behind the actual situation. I use them myself, at whiles, but only for lack of anything better. To have things really right, looking up the Swedish AIP might be useful - it is the official directory of all aviation information, in a format normalised by ICAO. Unfortunately not all countries publish all their aerodrome information in it.