I realize this changeset was an import done years ago, but I am going to ask my question anyway.

node/1042025857
and the node/1042028604

Are these 'seaplane' bases real things? What is the criteria for something to be a 'seaplane' base (other than registering it with the CFS) A guy with a private dock that keeps an airplane on it but offers no physical aviation amenities doesn't seem to deserve a tag as an aerodrome. There are lots of docks with seaplanes on lake vernon.

I haven't been to that part of Lake vernon in a few years but I don't recall any noticeable aviation infrastructure should these nodes be deleted, it isn't as if there is a runway or hanger.

You should not put meta data, like "(Under Construction)" in the name field, see osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

You should use landuse=construction then construction=<eventual main tag>. You should not include tags, which, in the absence of the construction tag would result in a valid main tag, as renderers may not act on the construction tags

In this case, the next level should probably be construction=aerodrome, although I think you can also do construction=aeroway; construction:aeroway=aerodrome.

"New" in the name should also only be used if the construction site has a name and it appears in that name.

This comment was the result of finding node/1042054418/history.

Are you sure that ourairports.com is a valid data source? I was unable to find license of their dataset anywhere.

Yes. See the section 'terms of use' on this page: https://ourairports.com/data/

@bcrosby What was the original source of the data? "We hereby release all of these files into the Public Domain" does not "licence wash" the original data if it was obtained by ourairports.com under a licence that was not compatible with OSM.

You didn't ask me what the source of data was.

You asked me where to find the licence.

I don't know how each individual contributor to that site sourced their data. Personally I did so as a pilot when visiting these airports.

Have you tried contacting the site owner for details?

"release into public domain" does trigger red flags, as it is generally not possible except by the passage of time, or if you are the US federal government, and the latter only within the USA. It tends to indicate someone who doesn't understand intellectual property rights.

"I don't know how each individual contributor to that site sourced their data." - it depends on whatever whoever operates this site treats copyright seriously.

For example on OpenStreetMap, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons any detected copyright violation is removed and people actively look for them.

It also depends on what kind of sources they accept - is it OK to use Google Maps to contribute to their database? Are they accepting data copied from maps and database protected by copyright and copyright-like restrictions?

Is there a page on their site documenting what kind of contributions are accepted?

This airport does not appear to exist. node/1042089497

Even if it did, I cannot imagine any valid airport would have "(not precise TBD)" as part of its official name. This appears to violate Name is only the Name, which I commented on before.