Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Old Aerodromes

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-04-12 16:29, Martijn van Exel wrote:

> I am not so concerned with rendering - that's not what we map for.

I think it would sound better if you said that rendering is one of the
many things we map for. OSM is not WOM (write-only memory). 

//colin 
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Old Aerodromes

[Neil Pilgrim]

Well, while the use of the data on the 'airport related web sites' may or
may not be valid to use, going around deleting private ones seems somewhat
counter-intuitive - why not simply mark them as private, if that
knowledge/data is open? If they do get rendered, I'm sure there are
precedents for marking public/private ones, and rendering accordingly
(parking comes to mind, but maybe also caves?).

Don't get me wrong - I know that a lot of old/stale data can be present
(particularly in US imports?), and have come across 'schools' which haven't
been so for years, for example. This seems a bit too enthusiastic deletion
though.

--
Neil


On 12 April 2016 at 15:29, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the existence of an small
> airfield can be hard to verify from imagery - but I am also wondering what
> the value of this unverified and stale data is to OSM. If they were mapper
> surveyed nodes to begin with I would perhaps feel the need to be more
> cautious in removing them. I looked at perhaps 30 of them, looking them up
> on various airport related web sites, and ~70% of them were private air
> strips with no public access from air or ground. So those being
> fundamentally unverifiable (unless there is a sign or some structures on
> the ground that would make it so) I would see no problem deleting them.
>
> I like the suggestion for encouraging additional mapping (runways) if
> visible and this is already part of the instruction, let me know if that
> could be clearer.
>
> I am not so concerned with rendering - that’s not what we map for.
>
> Martijn
>
> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Christoph Hormann 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
> >> first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
> >> obviously no airport or airfield.
> >
> > I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature
> > is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a
> > place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something
> > that can be reliably determined from imagery.
> >
> > This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features
> > to place labels and icons but these features are generally too
> > ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.
> >
> > The real observable feature of an airfield is the perimeter fence or
> > other form of delineation which then makes it a landuse mapping but
> > this only works for actively maintained airfields with a clearly
> > visible outline.  Otherwise the observable feature of an airfield is
> > the runway - mapping this is much better defined and more useful
> > information-wise than the airfield itself.
> >
> > So the challenge would IMO make more sense if it would encourage mapping
> > runways if they are visible rather than removing an aerodrome based on
> > the fact that it is not visible on imagery.
> >
> > See also here for a different angle on the problems of aeroway=aerodrome
> > as it is currently mapped:
> >
> > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1143
> >
> > --
> > Christoph Hormann
> > http://www.imagico.de/
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > talk...@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Old Aerodromes

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all, 

Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the existence of an small airfield 
can be hard to verify from imagery - but I am also wondering what the value of 
this unverified and stale data is to OSM. If they were mapper surveyed nodes to 
begin with I would perhaps feel the need to be more cautious in removing them. 
I looked at perhaps 30 of them, looking them up on various airport related web 
sites, and ~70% of them were private air strips with no public access from air 
or ground. So those being fundamentally unverifiable (unless there is a sign or 
some structures on the ground that would make it so) I would see no problem 
deleting them. 

I like the suggestion for encouraging additional mapping (runways) if visible 
and this is already part of the instruction, let me know if that could be 
clearer.

I am not so concerned with rendering - that’s not what we map for.

Martijn

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
>> first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
>> obviously no airport or airfield.
> 
> I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature 
> is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a 
> place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something 
> that can be reliably determined from imagery.
> 
> This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features 
> to place labels and icons but these features are generally too 
> ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.
> 
> The real observable feature of an airfield is the perimeter fence or 
> other form of delineation which then makes it a landuse mapping but 
> this only works for actively maintained airfields with a clearly 
> visible outline.  Otherwise the observable feature of an airfield is 
> the runway - mapping this is much better defined and more useful 
> information-wise than the airfield itself.
> 
> So the challenge would IMO make more sense if it would encourage mapping 
> runways if they are visible rather than removing an aerodrome based on 
> the fact that it is not visible on imagery.
> 
> See also here for a different angle on the problems of aeroway=aerodrome 
> as it is currently mapped:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1143
> 
> -- 
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk