please stop editing posts for minor things in such a continuous manner. either do substantial edits, or leave it be.

See aviation.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3715/… -- in the future I'll follow the guidance of the upvoted answers--

@Federico, your comment above has caused QF to compile multiple future edits in the comments section of some of his other answers. I don't think this is what you intended, and personally I find this far more annoying than multiple edits - Nobody sees the edits unless they do a deep dive, but everyone gets to see the comment strings. It's his post, please let him edit it as he sees fit.

Note that edit #23 represented a complete re-working of this answer to incorporate the Sitka airport information; arguably I should have just deleted the old answer and started a new one. In fact if you see the deleted answer you can see I did post a new answer, but I guess for some reason I changed my mind and decided to edit the old one instead. Probably so that links to it in other answers would still work. If were doing again would have deleted the old one and started fresh.

@MichaelHall - when I know for certain that an answer needs still more thought and I'm not ready to make what I hope will be the final edit-- that's when planned edits get filed away in comments. (Because I've been so strongly cautioned to minimize edits.) I don't see what the problem is. So, other readers can see that some changes are planned. Why is that so objectionable? Re "Nobody sees the edits unless they do a deep dive" -- plenty of ASE readers apparently take a different view. In comments I've been accused of trying to "game the system" and keep my posts at the top of the stack.

(Which of course is never my actual intent / motivation.)

Highly related answer (by an ATC controller) to a related question: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/71406/… . Key line: "In the Center environment, we make no distinction between the surface area and the extensions when dealing with SVFR."

Sorry, that list of airports was wrong and could have been confusing, had to update--

See what I started?!

At the risk of starting an extended conversation (per-apologies) I looked at KACV, KTVL, and KSGU and don't see a "boundary" indicated on the sectional charts dividing up the two different types of surface E extension. Maybe I'm missing something.

I see now thanks. And FWIW I believe that when airspace designations changed (many years ago) the issue of how to handle svfr in "E" space was not specically considered. Now, as you point out, there is a diverse set of opinions regarding how svfr rules should be applied in those "E" extensions

@RTO -- the corrected list of airports (other than SIT/PASI) where E4 airspace abuts E2 airspace, but no boundary is shown on the chart, is KACV, KSGU, and KBIH. KACV used to show the boundary between the E2 airspace and the E4 "extension" but no longer does, but the airspace has not actually been reconfigured. KTVL used to show the boundary but the airspace has been reconfigured so the E4 "extension" is gone. As far as I know KSGU and KBIH never did show the boundaries between the E2 core surface areas and the E4 Class-E-to-Surface extensions.

(ctd) Addressed in aviation.stackexchange.com/q/63970/34686, but needs updating re KACV and KTVL (see comments). And the airspace of SIT/PASI has also been reconfigured since the present question was asked-- the E4 "extension" has been removed there too. And for clarity, when I say an extension was "removed" in these comments, I'm referring to a real change (reduction) in the total amount of surface-level Class E airspace-- not just merging the E4 "extension" with the E2 core while keeping the same surface footprint. Though in theory, that would be a valid option as well it seems.

@RTO -- re "And FWIW I believe that when airspace designations changed (many years ago) the issue of how to handle svfr in "E" space was not specifically considered." --see the direct quote in this answer ("Therefore, these current rules for operations in control zones...") : aviation.stackexchange.com/a/93032/34686 . That's the most direct statement I've been able to find from the FAA, from the time period leading up to the 1993 airspace redesignation. I think the FAA had clear intentions for the "extensions", but then lost their way and forgot them.

(Re-posted to make more complete)

Locked for a week. Knock it off with the minor edits that keep bumping the question on the "Active" questions list.

Ah, moved to chat, good. So discussion can continue despite "the lock"...

Already working on much-needed revisions to another related answer-- but will try to hold off posting until truly "settled". Sorry, that Feb 2017 memo caught my attention so strongly that I just couldn't not incorporate into the answer ASAP, and then, well, you know, other changes just kept coming to mind. Just how my mind works.

Don't understand the theory that my edits are intended to "bump" the question. Anyone can see that the vast majority of edits caused no change in the position of the question. The way to most effectively "bump" the question, while "masking" one's true intentions by minimizing total number of edits, would be to make an edit about once every 24 hours or so, for a week or more straight.

My editing pattern has nothing in common with such a strategy. I just get really involved with the work for a day or two. Am pleased with the results. Think this answer really shows the problems w/ the FAA's current approach better than any other posted to date.

Re "In April 2022, SIT/PASI at Sitka Alaska featured a large E4 surface-level Class E "extension" extending 28 miles northwest of the airport, adjoining a core E2 surface-level Class E airspace area that surrounds the airport" -- should be "surrounded"