On Mon, May 20, 2019, 21:57 Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
>> The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to map the
>> outline of the runway, and mapping the "aeroway=runway" as a line
>> along the center of the runway.
sent from a phone
> On 21. May 2019, at 07:46, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> It's much easier and reliable to determine, length, bearing, centerline when
> mapped as a line
+1, it is easier, because it is not true that width and length aren’t contained
in the area, they are just harder to get
On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I've seen a number of runways mapped only as areas.
>
> This seems like a bad idea, since it loses the information of the
> runway centerline and length. Adding a width tag to a linear way
> should be enough to clearly define most runways.
> On May 21, 2019, at 10:35 AM, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> if this is considered necessary?
Similar to riverbank, sometimes the shape (and it’s irregular outline, where it
meets taxiways and aprons) is good to have for rendering at higher zoom levels
where lines no longer show the
I agree that “14/32” is a ref, not a name. Its similar to “I-80” for a
motorway.
(In the Openstreetmap-Carto style we render the runway ref, not the name,
but only when it is mapped as a linear way)
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:58 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36,
On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to map the
> outline of the runway, and mapping the "aeroway=runway" as a line
> along the center of the runway.
>
> Does everyone agree that aeroway:area is the right way to map
