Huge size is from incidentally finding and repairing a missing section of the "Contiguous US" boundary which verifying continuity.

The vacant land isn't really 'aerodrome', even though it looks like it's all one city parcel.

The runway looks off-line from the imagery, it's due to the elevation difference between the runway ends.

I had looked and seen that there were few instances of these tags, worldwide, but hadn't tracked people down.. seemed unlikely that anyone would really start consuming this data unless coverage was far less patchy.. TBH, I'm far more interested in using these (and ILS antennas, etc) as calibration points, but I have the changeset as an osm file and if I even find out the tagging of this stuff has become less adhoc I'll gladly update it.

Just to be clear, I'm generally looking at the actual right of way dedications, and putting the edge of the neighboring landuse where the actual edge is.... which is physically verifiable, if you cared to do so, by going out and hunting down the surveyor's nails that should be within a foot or two of where I put nodes.

Yeah. Thanks.

osm.org/changeset/80739785 should fix that.

Unfortunately the FAA doesn't tell us which ones are DVORs.

It's a data field from the FAA database... the specific docs are at https://nfdc.faa.gov/webContent/28DaySub/2020-01-30/Layout_Data/nav_rf.txt and the field is 'class of navaid'. It's more specific.

We 'care' IMO because navaids of the same type (a VORTAC, for instance) that cover different service volumes actually look different, not necessarily the building itself but the obstruction-free zone that is the rest of the site.

I'm not importing parcels, and if I was simply importing parcels (or even just drawing lines around them) then what I mapped would be look distinctly different.... it would, in fact, look like the parcels shown on Google Maps.

If you want to discuss what the verifiable 'edge' of a landuse is, thats a different issue, but I'd argue its not 'wherever someone guessed while looking at Bing'.

Don't use relations to connect the CDPs and the populated places.... the CDP boundaries are not administrative,

CDPs are now seperate entries in GNIS from the related populated places. In one case (Komatke) the populated place is in a different CDP (St. Johns).

Should be all fixed now. Any ways I didn't mean to edit have been returned to their original location. The walls should never have been linked to the boundary in the first place, given the city actual sued 700-something people a few years back over encroachments into the Preserve.... the walls actually do cross the boundary line, in reality.

Ugh. I tried to unlink as many of the ways as I could find, and resolved a ton of conflicts already. The problem is things that never should have been linked to the boundary in the first place. I'll get on it.