Proposal:Aerodrome Descriptive Tags - OpenStreetMap Wiki

Proposal:Aerodrome Descriptive Tags - OpenStreetMap Wiki
Proposal
Aerodrome Descriptive Tags
From OpenStreetMap Wiki
(Redirected from
Proposal:Aerodrome Classification
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Aerodrome Descriptive Tags
Proposal status
Draft
under way
Proposed by:
Telegram Sam
Tagging:
aerodrome
=*
Data item
Applies to:
Definition:
Descriptive tags for aerodromes.
Statistics:
Draft
started:
2026-01-02
RFC
start:
2026-01-22
Vote
start:
2026-04-02 18:30:00 (UTC)
Vote end:
2026-04-16 23:59:59 (UTC)
Contents
Introduction
1.1
Problem Statement
1.2
Proposal
1.3
Rationale
1.3.1
Current System
1.3.2
Main Tags
1.3.3
Aerodrome Tag
1.3.4
Special Aerodromes
1.3.5
Military and Disused
Tagging
2.1
Definitions
2.1.1
Main Tags
2.1.2
Special Aerodromes
2.2
Examples
2.2.1
Commercial Focused
2.2.2
General Focused
2.2.3
Special Aerodromes
2.2.4
Private
2.2.5
Military
2.2.6
Disused
Impacts of Proposal
3.1
On Data Consumers
3.2
Features/Pages affected
3.2.1
Created
3.2.2
Modified
3.2.3
Deprecated
Previous Discussions
4.1
Proposals
4.2
Forum
4.3
Mailing List
Comments
Voting 1
Introduction
Problem Statement
For a long time there has not been a clear and widely established system of describing aerodromes. One is necessary, so that all information is present and well organized. This proposal aims to fix this issue.
Proposal
An aerodrome can be described in terms of type with the following tags:
aerodrome
=*
continental / regional / local / ...
How an aerodrome is used can be described using the following tags:
usage
=*
military; general ; cargo ; scheduled ; charter ; ...
Whether the public has access to an aerodrome is described by the following tags:
access
=*
yes / private / ...
The presence of sports being practiced at an aerodrome is described by the following tags:
sport
=*
gliding ; parachuting ; ultralight_aviation ; ...
Whether an aerodrome accepts international traffic is described by the following tags:
port_of_entry
=*
yes / no
There are special types of aerodromes which receive their own special tags:
aeroway
=*
airstrip
aeroway
=*
heliport
aeroway
=*
seaplane_base
Military aerodromes can be mapped by adding a
military
=*
tag to them or to an area within them.
Disused aerodromes can be mapped by adding a
lifecycle prefix
to them.
Rationale
Current System
Currently mappers seem to be using both the
aerodrome
=*
and
aerodrome:type
=*
tags for describing aerodromes. In these tags, various natures of values are used like "international", "regional", "private" and "gliding" that mix different types of characteristics of aerodromes. All of these characteristics should instead have their own tags.
Main Tags
There are many categories of tags mixed in
aerodrome
=*
and
aerodrome:type
=*
, however most can be separated into the following 4 tags:
The
usage
=*
tag can then be used to specify how an aerodrome is being used, that is, for commercial travel, for general leisure, etc.
Private aerodromes can be indicated using the
access
=*
tag. In general no members of the public are allowed on the airside of an aerodrome so this tag describes access to its groundside by the public.
In case airsports are practiced at an aerodrome the
sport
=*
tag is used. These can happen at a variety of aerodrome sizes and while other traffic is using the aerodrome.
Finally, whether an aerodrome can receive international traffic or not is described by the
port_of_entry
=*
tag. This is normally a legal matter and should be available publicly. It can also be used by other objects like ports or border crossings.
Aerodrome Tag
After all values belonging to the previous 4 tags are removed from
aerodrome
=*
and
aerodrome:type
=*
we are left with tags like
aerodrome:type
international
aerodrome:type
regional
and
aerodrome:type
airfield
. They also happen to be among the most numerous.
What these tags have in common is that they describe how well developed the aerodrome is, akin to describing an urban settlement as a city or town.
As such, I propose the fifth tag,
aerodrome
=*
, to take these remaining development values. I also propose, however, that the terms be changed slightly:
1. "international", while in the majority of cases refering to large airports, is an attribute independent of development better fit for the
port_of_entry
=*
tag. I propose changing it to "continental", which still keeps its grandiose tone.
2. "continental" and "regional" are both geographical terms while "airfield" is not. It is also slightly generic. I propose changing it to "local" which keeps its small tone.
In the end we have "continental", "regional" and "local" which are more consistent with each other. "regional" and "local" are even common adjectives when refering to aerodromes in the general aviation world and are used by the FAA in their classification of airports.
Special Aerodromes
There are special types of aerodromes which are different from a regular aerodrome. These get their own tags.
The first is an airstrip, currently using the
aeroway
airstrip
tag. These are very low development aerodromes, often consisting only of a flat grass field. They are very numerous around the globe and can be deployed quickly. Often only light aircraft or specialized aircraft can land on them.
The second is a heliport, currently using the
aeroway
heliport
tag. These are aerodromes on which only aircraft which can take-off vertically can land. They often include hangars and refueling equipment but their only landing surfaces are helipads.
The third is a seaplane base, which I propose to use a new
aeroway
seaplane_base
tag. These are rare aerodromes which are more similar to ports than airfields. Their only landing surfaces are on water basins and aircraft must dock near the coastline when taxing. Only seaplanes can land on them.
Military and Disused
Current methods for mapping military or disused aerodromes are acceptable.
For purely military aerodromes, add a
military
base
or
military
airfield
tag to the
aeroway
aerodrome
. For joint aerodromes separate the two, giving the
aeroway
aerodrome
usage
military
to the entire aerodrome and the military tag to the areas under control of the military.
In the case of disused aerodromes, add a
disused:*
=*
, or
abandoned:*
=*
, etc. to the
aeroway
aerodrome
tag.
Tagging
Definitions
Main Tags
The
aerodrome
=*
tag should be used to describe an aerodrome by type. I propose as a start the following, based on currently in-use tags:
Tag
Description
aerodrome
continental
Based on the current
aerodrome:type
international
Refers to aerodromes with a large ammount of traffic and/or infrastructure.
aerodrome
regional
Based on the current
aerodrome:type
regional
Refers to aerodromes with a medium ammount of traffic and/or infrastructure.
aerodrome
local
Based on the current
aerodrome:type
airfield
Refers to aerodromes with a small ammount of traffic and/or infrastructure.
The
usage
=*
tag should be used to describe the type of activity present at an aerodrome. Multiple values can be present. As a start, I propose the following:
Tag
Description
usage
military
The aerodrome has substantial military traffic present.
usage
general
The aerodrome has substantial general aviation traffic present.
usage
cargo
The aerodrome has substantial cargo traffic present.
usage
scheduled
The aerodrome has substantial commercial scheduled traffic present.
usage
charter
The aerodrome has substantial commercial non-scheduled (charter) traffic present.
To clarify, general aviation is all operations that aren't commercial transport (airlines) or military. In our case it includes airwork.
No member of the public may enter the airside of an aerodrome without special permission (e.g. a ticket). The following tags describe whether a member of the public may access the groundside of the aerodrome:
Tag
Description
access
yes
Aerodrome owner allows members of the general public to use the aerodrome. Fees and scheduling may apply.
By default, all aerodromes are assumed to be public.
access
private
Aerodrome owner does not allow members of the general public to use the aerodrome.
The presence of sports and which ones at an aerodrome is described using the following tags (multiple values are allowed):
LOADING TAG LIST...
(If you do not see this tag list, you need to enable JavaScript)
This table is auto-generated. See
Template:Taglist
for a documentation on it.
Whether or not an aerodrome is international or not is described using the following tags:
Tag
Description
port_of_entry
no
International traffic cannot legally land at this aerodrome.
By the default, all aerodromes are assumed to not be ports of entry.
port_of_entry
yes
International traffic can legally land at this aerodrome.
Special Aerodromes
As described in the Rationale section, the following tags are available for tagging these special kind of aerodromes:
Tag
Description
aeroway
airstrip
Aerodromes with no or close to no infrastructure.
aeroway
heliport
Aerodromes with only helipads.
aeroway
seaplane_base
Aerodromes with only water runways.
Examples
Commercial Focused
Aerodrome (Bing Maps)
Tags
Cairo International Airport
aeroway
aerodrome
aerodrome
continental
usage
scheduled
port_of_entry
yes
Gold Coast Airport
aeroway
aerodrome
aerodrome
continental
usage
scheduled;general
port_of_entry
yes
Shizuoka Airport
aeroway
aerodrome
aerodrome
regional
usage
scheduled
port_of_entry
yes
Westray Airport
aeroway
aerodrome
aerodrome
local
usage
scheduled
General Focused
Aerodrome (Bing Maps)
Tags
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport
aeroway
aerodrome
aerodrome
continental
usage
charter;general
Paris-Saclay-Versailles Aerodrome
aeroway
aerodrome
aerodrome
regional
usage
general
Gießen-Lützellinden Aerodrome
aeroway
aerodrome
aerodrome
local
usage
general
sport
parachuting
Special Aerodromes
Aerodrome (Bing Maps)
Tags
Tufi Airport
aeroway
airstrip
Gunma Heliport
aeroway
heliport
Kenmore Air Harbor
aeroway
seaplane_base
port_of_entry
yes
Private
Aerodrome (Bing Maps)
Tags
Figueira dos Cavaleiros Aerodrome
aeroway
aerodrome
aerodrome
local
access
private
Military
Aerodrome (Bing Maps)
Tags
RMAF Butterworth Air Base
aeroway
aerodrome
military
base
military_service
air_force
Lajes Air Base
For the aerodrome:
aeroway
aerodrome
aerodrome
continental
usage
scheduled;military
port_of_entry
yes
For the military zone:
military
base
military_service
air_force
Disused
Aerodrome (Bing Maps)
Tags
Montargil Aerodrome
disused:aeroway
aerodrome
disused:aerodrome
local
Impacts of Proposal
On Data Consumers
Impact should be minimal as the base
aeroway
aerodrome
tag is unchanged.
Seaplane bases are currently tagged as
aeroway
aerodrome
so when changing to
aeroway
seaplane_base
this would cause them to disappear. To remedy this, tag them as
landuse
industrial
industrial
port
since they are also ports.
Features/Pages affected
Created
aerodrome
continental/regional/local
usage
general;cargo;scheduled;charter
aeroway
seaplane_base
port_of_entry
=*
Modified
aeroway
airstrip
aeroway
heliport
usage
military
Deprecated
The following tags have all their functionality moved from them and become obsolete:
Deprecated Tag
New Tags
aerodrome:type
=*
aerodrome
=*
aerodrome:type
international
aerodrome
continental
and/or
port_of_entry
yes
aerodrome:type
regional
aerodrome
regional
aerodrome:type
airfield
aerodrome
local
aerodrome:type
public
access
yes
aerodrome:type
private
access
private
aerodrome:type
military/public
access
yes
usage
military
aerodrome:type
gliding
sport
gliding
aerodrome:type
military
military
base
aerodrome:type
international;public
access
yes
port_of_entry
yes
aerodrome:type
seaplane
aeroway
seaplane_base
aerodrome:type
airsport
sport
=*
Previous Discussions
Proposals
Proposal:Airport
Proposal:Aerodrome
Proposal:Key:aerodrome
Proposal:Aerodrome 3
Forum
Doubts with aerodrome tagging
Gap in aerodrome type tagging
Mailing List
Aeroway=Aerodrome Modifier Tags?
Aerodrome types
Aerodrome classification
Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
Comments
Please comment on the
discussion page
or the
forum post
Voting 1
Instructions for voting
Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
Scroll back down and click "Edit source" next to the title "Voting". Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
To get this output
you type
Description
approve
this proposal.
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~
Feel free to also explain why you support the proposal!
oppose
this proposal.
reason
{{vote|no}}
reason
--~~~~
Replace
reason
with your reason(s) for voting no.
have comments
but abstain from voting on this proposal.
comments
{{vote|abstain}}
comments
--~~~~
If you don't want to vote yes or no but do have something to say. Replace
comments
with your comments.
Note: The
~~~~
automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For more types of votes you can cast, see
Template:Vote
. See also
how vote outcome is processed
approve
this proposal. I agree with
Morlark
Let us not let perfect be the enemy of good!
--
Zimtschnecke
talk
) 19:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
approve
this proposal. Distinguishing between major, international airports and small, private runways would be
extremely
useful for data consumers. --
Flap Slimy Outward
talk
) 01:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
have comments
but abstain from voting on this proposal.
Lean yes
. I have some minor concerns over usage=mixed -- existing usage is only on ways, not areas. Maybe change to a prefix tag. Otherwise seems to be well reasoned. Collapsing the classification into just 3 levels is probably for the best -- more detail can be added later if ever but I doubt a solid enough classification will ever get made. --
Campbelltree
talk
) 07:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I chose to use the usage=* tag in order to reuse currently existing tags. Do you think another tag more commonly associated with areas or services should be used? --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 11:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
approve
this proposal. I much (very much) prefer this re-worked proposal focusing more on physical characteristics of an aerodrome, and feel this leads to the introduction of more tags in the future (e.g. automated traffic, amount of gates). I feel this also helps bridge a gap with data, as my local aerodrome is very much a general aviation "airfield", but has 4 runways. --
O0235
talk
) 09:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
oppose
this proposal. Strongly oppose widening the definition of
aeroway
aerodrome
to include
airstrip
s, as discussed extensively on the talk page. The proposal barely mentions this major change and
its risk
. We shouldn't be changing the defintion of
aeroway
aerodrome
after 20 years, many data consumers will never update their code. This will cause farm fields to be rendered with the same prominence as an airport, on every OSM based map. --
Kylenz
10:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
approve
this proposal.I'm surprised this wasnt a thing already.
Hello again. Following your advice, aerodrome=airstrip isn't deprecated in the proposal and becomes an alternative tag. Users have the option to move them to aerodrome=airstrip or not. In Portugal, for example, most airstrips were already tagged as aeroway=aerodrome so impact is minimal, but in Australia for example airstrips can stay as aeroway=airstrip. --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 11:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I think that would be even worse, having both
aeroway
airstrip
and
aerodrome
airstrip
existing in parallel would be really confusing; especially since you're proposing that the two tags would have different definitions, despite sounding extremely similar. I suggest excluding
aeroway
airstrip
from your proposal, since it's distinctly different from an
aerodrome
. --
Kylenz
10:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I see, I thought that would solve your concerns. In a revision I will separate the two. --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 11:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
oppose
this proposal. While the proposal as written now is better than it started out, it's still way too subjective. What is an "important" thing to one data consumer is less important to another - they are each free to use the other tags associated with the object. Also, statements like "And yes, all current uses of aerodrome=* and aerodrome:type=* become obsolete." at
betrays at best a "lack of seriousness"? --
SomeoneElse
talk
) 12:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
That's the thing: There are no other tags that describe an aerodrome. No tags describing how big it is, how it's used, who uses it. This proposal adds those tags so that data consumers may use them for their own purposes. I also don't think they're subjective at all. In fact, their guidelines are very specific.
Additionally, can you elaborate on how my statement transmits a lack of seriousness? Under the proposal the aerodrome=* tag is given a very specific meaning and all other uses are transfered from it. I am not wrong in saying that all current uses become obsolete under it. --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 14:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Saying "all current uses become obsolete under it" without thinking through the implications implies to me that you are not serious.
SomeoneElse
talk
) 15:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
It is strange that you think I said it without thinking. Let's go over the top values for aerodrome=* and aerodrome:type=* and see what happens to them.
"public" becomes access=yes, "airfield" needs to be retagged as it follows a different definition, "regional" needs to be retagged as it isn't one of the valid values for size, probably as "airfield", "international" becomes port_of_entry=yes, "private" becomes access=private, "military/public" refers to a joint aerodrome which means the military area is drawn separately, "gliding" becomes airsport=gliding, "military" becomes military=base, "international;public" becomes access=yes and port_of_entry=yes, "seaplane" becomes aeroway=seaplane_base, "airstrip" likely needs to be retagged but could stay the same, "airsport" becomes sport=*, "mountain_airfield" becomes altitude=*, "aerodrome_marking" I don't know what they refer to, "domestic" becomes port_of_entry=no, "civil" means it's not military so lacks military tags.
Where is the lapse in my judgement? Why should values which have no relation to a new tag definition be seen as still valid? --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 17:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Tags do not "become" some other tag. You need to work with the OSM ecosystem to persuade people of the need for a change, and work with them to implement that change.
SomeoneElse
talk
) 18:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
There's no need to be overly focused on my choice of words. Nowhere do I say that tags should be converted in mass. I am simply trying to introduce a formal standard where none exists, which is exactly working with the OSM community. --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 21:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
oppose
this proposal. I think the definitions for aerodrome= are too arbitrary, and overlap with each other. I don't think airfield needs to exist, a division between an airport and airstrip is enough. I don't think seaplane bases should be moved to a separate aeroway= tag, but should instead be a subtype of aerodrome= e.g. aerodrome=water_aerodrome. Proposing moving to aerodrome=airstrip instead of aeroway=airstrip but also allowing aeroway=airstrip as an 'alternative' tag is confusing, unnecessary and is not a proper solution. --
LordGarySugar
talk
) 22:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I disagree, it is very useful to distinguish small local aerodromes from large airports. Can you also specify how the criteria are arbitrary and intersect? Level of infrastructure is a very good determinant of the size of an aerodrome and so is the size of aircraft that use it.
As for seaplane bases, why should they be treated differently than heliports? Isn't that inconsistent?
Finally, what solution would you give to airstrips? I have an opposing vote here that says transfering them risks them swarming the map in places where they're dense. You can't make separate aeroway=* tags either because then data consumers lose the large airports in the transition, which is worse. I found this was the optimal strategy, letting both tags coexist until the new one is more established. --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 02:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, it is useful to distinguish between small and large airports. But the definitions you have for airport is generally large to medium, and the definition for airfield is medium to small. If a given aerodrome has medium sized terminal and infrastructure, which category should it fall under?
Seaplane bases are currently tagged as aeroway=aerodrome, so changing this tag would be very disruptive to data consumers and renderers. No consideration is given to the impact of making this change.
As for the aeroway=airstrip problem, it is not possible for both the current and your proposed tagging schema to coexist as you claim. aeroway=aerodrome and aeroway=airstrip are mutually exclusive tags, you cannot have a gradual transition between two tags that use the same key. --
LordGarySugar
talk
) 03:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
The guideline definitions intersect on purpose. There's no fixed size limits for terminal buildings or industrial area or even plane type as trying to separate these into arbitrary categories would be fool's errand. Like many things in OSM, you have to analyse the aerodrome and make an educated decision on which category it fits best. Notice that words such as "large", "medium" and "small" can have different meanings to different people.
As for seaplane bases, it's true that I forgot to include their disruption. This is because they are a very small minority of total aerodromes, making their disruption very small. Heliports are of higher number and the approved aeroway=heliport tag is largely being unused too.
Both airstrips tags need not coexist. The transition would come from data consumers who would adopt higher zoom renderings (or none) for airstrips. Until such a time, mappers can leave airstrips tagged as they are currently in their region, be it as aeroway=aerodrome or aeroway=airstrip. --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 18:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
oppose
this proposal. There are too many edge cases to stick everything into tight classifications --
Fizzie41
talk
) 10:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
I thought we had gone through various edge cases and solved all of them? Can you give examples of edge cases that don't fit? --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 18:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
approve
this proposal. --
Caboulot
talk
) 13:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
have comments
but abstain from voting on this proposal. There are several components to this proposal, some of which I support and others which I oppose.
oppose
expanding the definition of
aeroway
aerodrome
to include airstrips, and I disagree with your assertion on the talk page that "Aerodromes and airstrips are not fundamentally different." I believe there's a clear distinction between the two, and I think that changing the established tagging (by making airfields a subtype of aerodromes) would hurt data consumers for little benefit.
support
the use of
usage
commercial/general
for describing the use of an aerodrome, airfield, heliport, etc. I think this might be extended with additional values in the future, e.g. for facilities that are used for emergency medical services (like the heliport at a hospital) or for aircraft service and repair.
support
the use of
sport
=*
to describe the kinds of leisure aviation activities that an airport offers or allows.
support
the creation of a new tag for seaplane bases.
I agree with the overall problem statement; it's currently hard for data consumers to determine the purpose and importance of an airport, which leads to undesirable renderings in maps (among other problems). I think that if mappers agree with and start to use
usage
=*
to describe the purpose/function of an airport, this will be a good first step, and paves the way for a future proposal about classifying an airport's importance. —
Jake Low
talk
) 19:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
If airstrips are fundamentally different from airfields, are airports fundamentally different from airfields too? It could have been done that way, by giving each class their own aeroway=* tag. This however would lead to large airports not showing up on data consumer's databases during transition. By making everything a subtype of aeroway=aerodrome every aerodrome currently in OSM would continue to show up for data consumers, making the transition much easier. --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 15:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
approve
this proposal. Let us not let perfect be the enemy of good. This proposal enforces the very important distinction between usage and significance, which current tagging otherwise mixes in a single tag. That some people consider the proposal to have some flaws should not stand in the way of adopting this distinction in tagging going forwards. It's unarguably better than what we currently have, and a vote against the proposal is implicitly a vote in favour of the current bad tagging, not a vote in favour of some hypothetical future perfect proposal (which will never come, because everyone has different ideas of what 'perfect' looks like). --
Morlark
talk
) 21:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
approve
this proposal.I approve the proposal, this is an improvement compared to what the current system is.
approve
this proposal. --
EneaSuper
talk
) 11:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
approve
this proposal. --
MBerHa
talk
) 07:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
oppose
this proposal. The proposed aerodrome=airport/airfield/airstrip are defined in the proposal as essentially large/medium/small aerodromes, without enough consideration to what qualifies as small, medium and large. Three different variables aro conflated, terminals, hangars and infrastructure, and aircraft size without consideration to aerodrams with terminals but only used by light aircraft and vice versa. The definition of usage=commercial and usage=general provides no guidance on what is commercial and what is general. Are you talking about passenger services? What about aerodromes that have private charter passenger services only? Are access=* meant to be for aeroplanes to land/take off? I'm not sure it's that simple. --
Aharvey
talk
) 00:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
It's true, the main 3 variables are basically just large, medium and small. However, notice how people have given real meaning to these sizes by giving each a specific word to refer to them: Airports, airfields and airstrips. These sizes are so important that different words were created for them. It's just like how we have different words for settlements based on size: Cities, town, villages, hamlets and so on.
Airports are like cities, airfields are like towns and airstrips are like villages.
As for the three variables, they are guidelines. Like everything in real life, nothing is black and white. You have to make an educated analysis of which category it fits best. Is it a city or a town? Is it an airport or an airfield?
As for usage, I admit I assumed a bit of aviation knowledge on the part of the reader. Commercial refers to commercial passenger transport, that is, transport of people made for revenue. Private charters are included. General refers to private flying and airwork.
Finally, access is indeed for pilots. No one is allowed in the airside of an aerodrome, and chances are if it is private, they won't let you in the groundside either. --
Telegram Sam
talk
) 00:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
approve
this proposal. --
geozeisig
talk
) 05:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting closed
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was
rejected
with
10 votes for,
5 votes against
and
2 abstentions.
Retrieved from "
Categories
Proposals with "Draft" status
Proposed features under way
Proposals with "Draft" status sorted by newest edit
Navigation menu