Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 11:13:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I don't see what other wishlist bug I ought to file here. The bug is >> > "please add more airport codes"; I realise it's somewhat open-ended but >> > I don't see how another bug report would help. There are a finite number >> > of airports in the world, and all the major ones have codes, so it must >> > be possible to extend it. >> >> No, *all* the airports have codes, and there are tens of thousands of >> them. So your request is one of the following: > > (You could have said what you meant to start with, rather than making a > vague negative comment and expecting me to divine its meaning ...)
Um, I couldn't tell what you were asking. You couldn't *possibly* have been asking for all the codes to be added. What you *were* saying is "add more", but that means nothing. Or else, perhaps, you were saying "either add lots of non-US ones, or drop the file entirely", but that can't be what you would be asking. Or else, perhaps, "guess which ones you should add, and add them, and I'll complain next week that you should add more". A wishlist item that says nothing more than "add lots more features!" is not helpful; it can and should be closed. When I was upstream myself, it didn't bother me, but now there is a different upstream, and I cannot forward a vague and general "add lots more" and expect them to do it or keep track of it. >> 1) Add all the airport codes (but then, it should be tagged "wontfix" >> and ignored; what's the point?) > > Actually I don't see what's intrinsically wrong with requesting a list > of all airport codes; it's not as though we don't have other files > containing tens of thousands of lines. Sure. You volunteering to maintain giant gobs of frequently-changing data that nobody will use? > The point is exactly the same as the current list, only it might > actually be useful when you're trying to remember an airport code > for the benefit of some poorly-written travel website that doesn't > accept airport names. You are clearly unaware of how many airport codes there are. There are airport codes (in the US, at least) for every dinky smooth patch in a field somewhere that the FAA knows about. > I don't see the value of a woefully incomplete > list other than as a curiosity, since you have no reliable > expectation of being able to search it and get a positive > result. You're right. You can't get *negative* data from it. But you can get *positive* data from it. I'm sorry that it doesn't meet your needs. But that doesn't make it a sensible request. > Nowadays I see that e.g. http://www.world-airport-codes.com/ exists, > which I think wasn't the case when I filed the bug, so at least I have a > fallback even if I do have to put up with advertisements along the way. > But, if everyone just uses a fallback instead, then there seems little > point in having the airport list in miscfiles at all; just replace it > with a URL or something. You are aware that www.world-airport-codes.com isn't anywhere near complete, right? It's got maybe 10%. That's what I mean. WHAT do you want? > OK, how about the full IATA list? See, now that's specific. If you open a wishlist item for that, I'll forward it upstream. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
