Jan Olieslagers (2020-10-10 15:57:13+00:00): Andy, good evening,

Your message did not go down very well here, so I took my time before replying - I think it important that we all remain polite and positive, in our actions and also in our words.

First and above all: if you have local information about flying activity having completely ceased at the former RAF Tockwith, I will certainly not contest that. I am well aware that, working from a distance, I can only go on secondary information, and that local observation is of prime value. So please do feel free to update/modify/remove my actions there, I will neither argue nor revert.

Second: I have often felt a tiny bit guilty about adding or modifying aerodromes without leaving any comment. Only: what would be a meaningful comment? "added aerodrome" would not really have any added value, would it? What type or style of comment would you suggest or recommend? "Aerodrome as seen on satellite images"? I still find that little meaningful.

About the "name" tag: I know that, in the strict sense, we should only use this tag for names either given in official publications or visibly written locally, on signposts or at entrance gates or so. There is however, all over Europe, a tendency to be less strict about this when it comes to "aviation terrains", especially in Eastern Europe nobody seems to care. And I do find it important to apply consistent styles across Europe, there is no good reason to map aerodromes differently in Poland than in Wales or in Catalunya. So while you have a point, I think you should not consider it a major point, and certainly nothing to make pointed remarks about.

Please excuse me for being unhappy about your "accusation" that I blindly copied things over from G. You may be assured that before modifying anything in the OSM database, I will consult satellite images (which unfortunately aren't always up to date) and at least two references. An operator's website is of course a primary source, lacking those I will consult sites like abct or ukairfieldguide or uk-airfield-cards. One trouble is these sometimes take one another for inspiration; but, for one example, I know for a fact that the operator of ukairfieldguide will carefully compare as many sources of information as available; and if he does rely heavily on G, he will carefully analyse the historical information that it offers. So please do not accuse me of "copying", there is always a good deal of informed and well-pondered consideration; and the sources that I consult are not blindly copying, either.

And while I am on the complaints: I quite regret your phrase "We will need to go through..." no, there is no _need_ for you to do whatever, there only may be a wish or an impulse or an intention. Which may be justified or not, I'll not argue there. But it sounds like you are trying to hide your deliberate decision behind some nondescript "official" requirement. To me, this is contrary to the spirit that I always found behind OSM, and which has always been a great motivation to my contributions.

All this said, I do understand and accept that some kind of supervision is required, and that there may be a need to assist mappers in finding optimal ways and styles of mapping. But I think the first job for the DWG should be in resolving conflicts, and intermediating in discussions, between mappers. There was this German guy ("woodpeck", I seem to remember?) in the DWG with whom I have had a couple of, err, "animated exchanges" , he is not very active these days, but when he is, it is always on a very constructive and amiable tone. And he has shown himself quite active and quite effective at mediating, and bringing people to compromise.

Kindly and positively yours,
Karel ADAMS, mapping as Jan Olieslagers.