piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
czubi (2019-03-14 15:43:40+00:00): Ich war so mit dem Kunstwerk beschäftigt,
 
https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=50.9760877&lon=11.0230113&zoom=19&camera.theta=43.585&camera.phi=142.666

habe gar nicht drauf geachtet, das Du da was berichtigt hattest. Habe das Dach ins andere Gebäude gezogen damit die Dachform passt. Mappen für den 3D Renderer ;-(

Die 3D Dachform und die Überlappung vertragen sich nicht so richtig. Ich hab's jetzt mal in building:part geändert, dann müsste beides i.O. sein. Melde dich bitte nochmal wenn es nicht funktioniert hat oder  stell die Osmose Abfrage hier als link rein dann kann ich auch selber nochmal schauen. 
Danke fürs melden
MKnight (2019-03-14 16:36:29+00:00): osmose wäre: http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/de/map/#country=germany_thueringen&item=0000%2C0001&zoom=18&lat=50.976375&lon=11.023465&level=1%2C2%2C3&tags=&fixable= aber is ja jetzt behoben.

Ich habe in JOSM den Kartenstil "apple-validation" aktiv, der zeigt sowas sofort an.

Allerdings sollte der Josm-Validator beim Hochladen spätestens Meckern, hast Du den abgestellt?
MKnight (2019-03-14 16:40:06+00:00): Nachtrag: ah das grambled-Dach sieht nun vernünftig aus, heute Mittag und letztens als ich geschaut hatte wars fürchterlich.
czubi (2019-03-14 16:51:58+00:00): Kartenstil "apple-validation"  ?? finde ich nicht. Ich habe nur 3 Kartenstile mit "a" und der ist nicht dabei. Muss da noch irgendein plugin rein?
Validator ist an. Vielleicht hat er auch gemeckert und ich hab's durchgewunken weil ich sehen wollte wie das Dach in SCHÖN aussieht. Kann ich nicht mehr genau sagen.
Ja Dach sieht jetzt besser aus. Du weist doch, für 3D braucht man manchmal mehrere Anläufe  :-)
MKnight (2019-03-14 17:06:52+00:00): Wie ich den Stil reinebekommen hab weiss ich nicht mehr, wahrscheinlich manuell:
Aktive Stile -> Plus -> bei URL: https://github.com/osmlab/appledata/archive/josm_paint_inline_validation.zip

Sehr bequemes Ding, hat allerdings auch einen Bug: wenn man auf einer Zoomstufe was korrigiert, ist die Fehleranzeige irgendwie gecached. Rein-/Rauszoomen hilft.
czubi (2019-03-16 12:56:44+00:00): Ja. Hinzufügen funktioniert genau so. Werds mal ausprobieren. Danke.
Die Überlappung sollte weg sein.
eggie (2019-03-13 17:32:30+00:00): Dag Eefje..
Niet zelf adressen aanmaken in OSM Nederland. 
Probeer bij te taggen op de bestaande adresnodes van het Kadaster.
Nr 77 bevindt zich links.
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2019-03-13 18:25:01+00:00): info gecombineerd met adresnode
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-03-13 16:09:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 68105474 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some more Pokemon Sockpuppetry in Rochester.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2589
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-03-13 16:09:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 68105474 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some more Pokemon Sockpuppetry in Rochester.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2589
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-03-13 16:09:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 68105474 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some more Pokemon Sockpuppetry in Rochester.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2589
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-03-13 16:09:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 68105474 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some more Pokemon Sockpuppetry in Rochester.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2589
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-03-13 16:09:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 68105474 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some more Pokemon Sockpuppetry in Rochester.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2589
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-03-13 16:09:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 68105474 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some more Pokemon Sockpuppetry in Rochester.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2589
eggie (2019-03-13 17:33:22+00:00): Svp bijtaggen op de bestaande adresnode nr 30.
Gr Eggie
eggie (2019-03-13 18:17:04+00:00): Helaas heb je ook het adres verwijderd van de Bieb.
De bieb dan weg zijn, maar zo'n adres blijft natuurlijk wel bestaan.
Gr. Eggie
eggie (2019-03-13 18:21:20+00:00): Adres hersteld en info naar adresnode verplaatst.
Gr eggie
aceman444 (2019-03-24 22:23:57+00:00): Hi, what was wrong on roundabout way 662224412? Why is removing oneway=yes useful (I know junction=roundabout implies oneway), but how does Osmose flag it as error?
GBAB (2019-03-25 13:40:55+00:00): Dear Aceman444,
nothing was wrong with it I just made OSM a bit simpler. As far as I remember, in OSMose it is among the JOSM validator switches on the end of the list. (There is no specific checkbox for it.).
Kind regards
Gábor
aceman444 (2019-03-25 17:22:12+00:00): Hi, 'simpler' is relative, and while oneway on roundabout may seem redundant, it at least isn't wrong and is safer. It is similar to the implied oneway on highway=motorway. Not all applications assume that. So it is always safer to add oneway and e.g. toll explicitly (whether yes or no).
I don't think JOSM valudator has such a rule. I always add oneway onto roundabouts and the JOSM validator never reports it. Maybe the Osmose test is outdated or wrongly claim this check is from JOSM.
GBAB (2019-04-12 08:47:35+00:00): Dear Aceman444,
I have found the reference on Osmose:
https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?item=4020&class=101
Cheers
Gábor
aceman444 (2019-04-29 12:41:39+00:00): Thanks.
PT-53 (2019-03-13 18:05:13+00:00): Hallo  bike-energy,
schon wieder ein unvollständiger Eintrag (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/68010117).
Kannst oder willst Du es nicht besser machen?
Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2019-03-13 18:10:39+00:00): Der nächste unvollständige Eintrag!
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/68104535)
Dimacn (2019-03-13 18:14:25+00:00): Здравствуйте. Пожалуйста не используйте вымышленные имена объектов в теге name. Удалите текст из тега name. Подробнее:  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:name
mavl (2019-05-09 21:12:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 70070559, 70089054, 70085951, 70037729, 70077636, 70057605, 70050915, 70060594, 70055377, 70044356, 70083698, 70087499, 70065088 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
oba510 (2019-03-14 06:29:26+00:00): This was already on the map, drawn as a separate cycleway (because there's a fence between it and the rest of the street.
Nodestrawaymus (2019-03-14 15:20:43+00:00): Hello oba510! Thank you very much for the information and making the correction for me. I understand your reasoning and agree it should not have been applied. Thanks again!
opendcc (2019-03-14 04:47:23+00:00): herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.

Deine Beiträge sehen leider erfunden und nicht der Realität entsprechend aus. Die von dir verwendeten Tags passen nicht zum Luftbild oder sind unlogisch. Bitte trage in OpenStreetMap keine Dinge ein, die nicht der Realität entsprechen. Deine Änderungen habe ich soeben zurückgesetzt.

Siehe dazu auch (auf Deutsch)
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2016/12/30/tipps-fuer-neue-pokemon-go-mapper/?lang=de

Viele Grüße
tomhukins (2021-08-06 13:24:35+00:00): Thank you for helping to improve OpenStreetMap.  In this change you marked https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236014093 as "foot=private" and "access=private" and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/156619303 as "access=private".  However, both ways also have "designation=public_footpath" which suggests foot access is permitted.  Can you explain the reason for these changes?
rkumreo (2021-08-10 09:12:09+00:00): Hi tomhukins, 

Apologies for the genuine miss from my end. I have missed checking the designated=public_footpath tag which contradicts with the changes that I made. I have now changed the access tag as a part of changeset (109450652). Thanks for letting me know. 

Regards,
rkumreo
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-03-13 16:09:09+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-03-13 16:09:54+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 68103951, 68103972, 68103983, 68104000, 68104002, 68104008, 68104026, 68104038, 68104049, 68104060, 68104071, 68104078, 68104091.
mavl (2019-05-09 21:12:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 70070559, 70089054, 70085951, 70037729, 70077636, 70057605, 70050915, 70060594, 70055377, 70044356, 70083698, 70087499, 70065088 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
mavl (2019-05-09 21:12:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 70070559, 70089054, 70085951, 70037729, 70077636, 70057605, 70050915, 70060594, 70055377, 70044356, 70083698, 70087499, 70065088 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
mavl (2019-05-09 21:12:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 70070559, 70089054, 70085951, 70037729, 70077636, 70057605, 70050915, 70060594, 70055377, 70044356, 70083698, 70087499, 70065088 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
Remel220 (2019-03-13 18:52:02+00:00): Прошу временно не менять на цифровое обозначение. Я сам всё верну в исходное состояние, если голосовые подсказки не изменятся.
mavl (2019-05-09 21:13:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 70070559, 70089054, 70085951, 70037729, 70077636, 70057605, 70050915, 70060594, 70055377, 70044356, 70083698, 70087499, 70065088 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
mavl (2019-05-09 21:12:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 70070559, 70089054, 70085951, 70037729, 70077636, 70057605, 70050915, 70060594, 70055377, 70044356, 70083698, 70087499, 70065088 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
Topografischt (2019-03-14 10:09:57+00:00): Vanwaar is de wegronding weer teruggezet?
Topografischt (2019-03-14 10:10:33+00:00): Excuses, de standaardkaart laat het niet zien, humanitarian wel
eggie (2019-03-14 11:08:28+00:00): Hier heb je het helemaal correct gedaan. De standaardkaart zet je op het verkeerde been. wel heb ik de weg veranderd in highway=residential. Niet doorlopende straten horen als residential getagd. te worden. 
Je kunt die straten dus gerust omtaggen naar highway=residential. 
Zie ook wiki.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:The_Netherlands_roads_tagging
PT-53 (2019-03-14 06:36:49+00:00): Änderungssatzkommentar?
Wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Gute_.C3.84nderungssatz-Kommentare
viloan (2019-03-13 16:34:21+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
DaveF (2019-03-19 16:02:11+00:00): Hi
When updating existing buildings please be aware of shops/pubs etc occupying double houses:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171254679
viloan (2019-03-13 16:54:44+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
eggie (2019-03-13 17:40:29+00:00): Dag COre,

Dit lijkt me niet correct. De begraafplaats is hier al op het vlak getagd. 

MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2019-03-14 13:01:28+00:00): De dubbele tagging heb ik verwijderd. 
Gr Eggie
donarreiskoffer (2019-05-06 12:59:45+00:00): In werkelijkheid ligt hier wel degelijk een rotonde. Zaterdag jongstleden hier nog langsgereden. Waarom heb jij kruispunt in OSM veranderd?
JoL (2019-05-06 13:58:07+00:00): Tiens, bizar, ik ben er zeker van dat ik iets gelezen had over een ombouw naar een kruispunt met verkeerslichten. Maar ik moet eerlijk zeggen dat ik niks meer terugvind nu...
donarreiskoffer (2019-05-06 18:05:32+00:00): Ik ben er vrij zeker van dat daar nog steeds een rotonde ligt. Maar misschien zijn er gewoon lichten bijgekomen. (http://wegenenverkeer.be/persberichten/kruispunt-met-verkeerslichten-voor-fietsers-n43-deinze) Ik zal nog eens kijken als ik er binnenkort weer passeer.
JoL (2019-05-06 21:14:33+00:00): OK, laat maar weten hier dan.
donarreiskoffer (2019-05-20 11:27:40+00:00): Ik ben afgelopen weekend nog eens ter plaatse geweest. Probleem opgehelderd!!

Het kruispunt van de N43 hier met de Pontstraat in DEURLE, is nog steeds een rotonde zoals al sinds reeds jaren het geval. Kun je je wijzigingen daarom terugdraaien alstublieft?

Waar er wel nieuwe verkeerslichten geplaatst zijn is aan het kruispunt van de N43 met de Pontstraat in DEINZE (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/162038086) . Daar staan sinds een paar maanden verkeerslichten en die zouden ook in Openstreetmap mogen worden toegevoegd.
JoL (2019-05-20 12:54:29+00:00): Ik heb gepoogd alles terug te draaien. Hopelijk ok nu.
viloan (2019-03-13 16:58:02+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
andrewwiseman (2019-04-10 17:34:55+00:00): Thanks for mapping. You changed this road from track to primary, but primary is "Long, major roads that connect larger towns and cities" - in this case there isn't a major town. It's probably best to keep it as track or maybe unclassified. Thanks.
feta2 (2019-03-13 21:07:41+00:00): Hello jan_olieslagers,

I noticed that (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666909831#map=17/56.31117/9.12177) does not cover any of the runways or taxiways. Per the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aeroways) and various international airports (Way: Flughafen München (487185364), Way: Heathrow (185882029), Way: O'Hare International Airport (25821866)) this polygon would be more appropriate (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485655137) to have the aeroway=aerodrome tag on it. 

I have two suggestions. 
I can transfer all the tags from Way: 666909831 to Way: 485655137. 
I can realign the geometry for Way: 666909831 to cover the runways and taxiways.

What do you think?

Thanks
jan_olieslagers (2019-03-14 06:11:26+00:00): Dear, I am much obliged for your friendly and open way of discussion. Thank you very much! 

This particular aerodrome is a bit difficult, as it remains military but also has a civilian terminal; there have been arguments over this configuration in many places.
The best solution I can think of:
* put all the aeronautical info in a relation, with aeroway=aerodrome
* the relation has two members:

** aeroway=terminal for the civilian terminal

** landuse=military ; military=airfield but no aeroway tag for the rest of the area, which includes runways and taxiways

However, most and above all, I recommend to discuss with the mapper of way 666909831 (Hjart); he is Danish, whereas I am in faraway Belgium, and he has some quite outspoken ideas about how to map aerodromes.

Very kindly yours from Haacht, Brabant,
Karel ADAMS
karlchen9@skynet.be
Hjart (2019-03-14 08:25:48+00:00): What kind of relation would you have in mind, Karel? I don't see any that would really work well.
We have 2 other similar situations in Denmark: at Ålborg and Skrydstrup, and I was always in doubt how to map them.
feta2 (2019-03-14 20:00:14+00:00): jan_olieslagers, 

I am also curious about what kind of relation you have in mind. Do you gave an example of one already in the data?
jan_olieslagers (2019-03-15 16:03:57+00:00): Excuse me for having been very busy. I do not know very much about relations, in fact I try to avoid them as much as possible. So I do not have very firm ideas, only a general picture. A further complication is that there already exists a relation, describing the full military area.

As I see it, we need to create a second relation. This is to describe the complete aerodrome. It should contain all the info from the AIP (operator, elevation, ICAO code) and a few more (IATA code). This relation should have as its main taig aeroway:aerodrome. The relation should have two members: on the one hand the military area, which includes the runways and taxiways and the revetments on the North side; this is largely ok, and presently has no aeroway= tagging; can remain largely as is. The second member should be the civilian terminal; this is presently tagged as aeroway=aerodrome, in my thinking this should be changed to aeroway=terminal. Also, it presently holds many tags that should (always in my thinking) be transferred to the relation, since they describe the whole aerodrome, not just the terminal.
I hope I made myself clearer? If not, feel free to mail me at karlchen9 @ skynet . be
Kind regards,
Karel ADAMS
Hjart (2019-03-16 09:42:59+00:00): The current representation of the military airfield (a multipolygon) appears rather misleading to me (look at i.e. the representation in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Flyvestation_Karup zoom out to see the entire airfield). I'm not all that familiar with this particular airfield, but that inner...?
@Karel. Unfortunately commonly used relation types in OSM (particularly those those that are rendered) do not work well for what you want to do, so I'm afraid we'll have to come up with a solution involving 2 separate (but possibly overlapping) areas.
osmviborg (2019-03-16 10:36:56+00:00): Delete 485655137 as part of the multipolygon, it's the fenced area, but keep the way as fence. Create a new inner representing the aerodrome area, using this chart https://aim.naviair.dk/media/files/nbrvyxd0a0a/EK_AD_2_EKKA_ADC_en.pdf
Hjart (2019-03-16 11:23:42+00:00): I'm not at all sure how to tell from that pdf what's civilian vs what's military. I've removed the fenced area from the multipolygon and edited the one of the outers to exclude the civilian terminal as best i could though
Hjart (2019-03-16 11:36:17+00:00): @osmviborg: do you know where https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saab_AR_35_Draken_AR-112_-_Flyvestation_Karup.jpg is located (if it's still here)? I recently tried to spot it in the SDFE aerial imagery, but failed.
osmviborg (2019-03-16 12:13:20+00:00): The whole area is military, including the area where civilian airport is located.
The gate guard is located to the right of the main gate.
Hjart (2019-03-16 13:05:00+00:00): If the whole area is really military (including the area used for the civilian terminal) then there's no point in creating another inner?
osmviborg (2019-03-16 14:04:26+00:00): A new inner for the aerodrome area only, runways and taxiways. This is where the civilian traffic is allowed.
Hjart (2019-03-16 14:21:16+00:00): The runways etc are part of the military area (Flyvestation Karup), right? If they are, then it will be misleading to exclude them (create an inner) from the multipolygon.
Hjart (2019-03-16 14:48:50+00:00): As an example, what's in the inner of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6048794 isn't part of the building.
osmviborg (2019-03-16 15:38:06+00:00): @Hjart, EKKA ARP 561750.85N 0090728.66E, et punkt, fyld de relevante oplysninger ind i punktet, dixi
jan_olieslagers (2019-03-16 15:48:25+00:00): Dear friends, please keep communication in English :) But I must frankly say I am quite lost on your discussion, I think I'll not contribute very much beyond this point. Please remember my main concern: each aerodrome should be mentioned once and exactly once with the "aeroway=aerodrome" tag; this is important for the visible map (although of course we should not merely map for the renderer) but also for those applications that consult the database directly, through Overpass or other mechanisms. Agian, my sincere gratitude for the polite and constructive discussion!
feta2 (2019-03-18 21:25:29+00:00): @Hjart - you mentioned that the Ålborg airport has a similar issue. It looks like mikkolukas and juliaboy agreed to having one polygon with both a military=airfield and a aeroway=aerdrome tag. This also follows OSM policy: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Daerodrome#Military_airfields. Is this something that could be considered here? Or like you mentioned earlier, "2 separate (but possibly overlapping) areas?"
Hjart (2019-03-18 22:58:42+00:00): Aalborg is 2 areas too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/665995354
Jan Olieslagers (2019-03-19 16:47:33+00:00): Yes, @hjart, sadly so. It seems so obviously incorrect to me to have two entries, both mentioning the IATA code and the ICAO code and several more. One day, some information will change, and some well-meaning mapper will update one entry but not the other and then there will be no end to confusion. I am afraid I will give up on mapping aerodromes, at least in Danmark.