Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions
Yup. Typo on my part. Digging some more, I have a better understanding of the tagging system. It doesn't look like holding_position:type is seeing a ton of use, and from what I can tell, it'd be more conventional and less onerous to drop "type" and go with holding_position=. I can document that in the aeroway=holding_position tag page, with links back to that page from holding_position=runway, =intermediate, & =ILS. I'm planning on using the same format as the How to Map section of waterway=dock https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddock On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:37 PM Brad Neuhauser wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:14 PM Steven Estes wrote: > >> Sorry, I was confused. It looks the tag format would be >> aeroway=holding_position:type=runway. >> > > I think you have a typo here, in practice this would be two separate > key/value tags: aeroway=holding_position and holding_position:type=runway. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions
Sorry, I was confused. It looks the tag format would be aeroway=holding_position:type=runway. As found here... https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/holding_position%3Atype So, the water is a bit muddy for me. I can use aeroway=holding_position:type, but if there would be a reason to prefer a different format, let me know. In the meantime, I'll try to get a bit smarter on the tagging system. On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:29 PM Steven Estes wrote: > I posted my plan to the discussion page. TOGA points out that :runway, > :intermediate, and :ILS are already in use (about 1000 uses total). Given > this, would folks still recommend holding_position=runway, or would > holding_position:runway be more appropriate? Thanks much. > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:13 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Flightgear uses this for world generation. >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:47 Mateusz Konieczny >> wrote: >> >>> "Inclusion of these markings will allow applications to warn the pilot >>> prior to entering the >>> runway safety area without permission from air traffic control. " >>> >>> I am pretty sure that OSM is not suitable source of data for maps used >>> by pilots. >>> Can you give examples of countries where it is OK to use OSM map data >>> for such purpose? >>> >>> Mar 28, 2019, 6:27 PM by tapes...@gmail.com: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/runway_holding_position >>> >>> Proposing the addition of runway holding position markings (commonly >>> called hold lines). Runway holding position markings are painted markings >>> on an airport surface that identify the runway safety area. At controlled >>> airports, these markings indicate where an aircraft is to stop if the >>> aircraft does not have permission to enter the runway. When exiting a >>> runway, an aircraft is not considered clear of that runway until all parts >>> of the aircraft have crossed the holding position marking. The runway >>> holding position is painted across the runway or taxiway and consists of >>> two solid lines on the side that is clear of the runway safety area and two >>> dashed lines on the other side. >>> >>> Greatly appreciate any comments folks have. >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions
I posted my plan to the discussion page. TOGA points out that :runway, :intermediate, and :ILS are already in use (about 1000 uses total). Given this, would folks still recommend holding_position=runway, or would holding_position:runway be more appropriate? Thanks much. On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:13 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > Flightgear uses this for world generation. > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:47 Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> "Inclusion of these markings will allow applications to warn the pilot >> prior to entering the >> runway safety area without permission from air traffic control. " >> >> I am pretty sure that OSM is not suitable source of data for maps used by >> pilots. >> Can you give examples of countries where it is OK to use OSM map data for >> such purpose? >> >> Mar 28, 2019, 6:27 PM by tapes...@gmail.com: >> >> >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/runway_holding_position >> >> Proposing the addition of runway holding position markings (commonly >> called hold lines). Runway holding position markings are painted markings >> on an airport surface that identify the runway safety area. At controlled >> airports, these markings indicate where an aircraft is to stop if the >> aircraft does not have permission to enter the runway. When exiting a >> runway, an aircraft is not considered clear of that runway until all parts >> of the aircraft have crossed the holding position marking. The runway >> holding position is painted across the runway or taxiway and consists of >> two solid lines on the side that is clear of the runway safety area and two >> dashed lines on the other side. >> >> Greatly appreciate any comments folks have. >> >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions
Is there a difference between holding_position=runway and holding_position:runway? Certainly better for simulation rendering. Without getting down in the weeds, it also can make a noticeable difference in algorithms where you're basing alerts on an approach to the hold line. Hold lines can take all sorts of interesting shapes. For example... https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dallas+Love+Field+Airport/@32.8513947,-96.8622508,211m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864e9c34982312d1:0xea741a5750bb2386!8m2!3d32.8481029!4d-96.8512063 On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 6:13 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > It would be easiest to add “holding_position=runway” to the existing > “aeroway=holding_position” tag. This way, any database users who are > already using “aeroway=holding_position” do not have their data broken, and > he detail can be added incrementally > > BTW, why do you need the line mapped rather than a node on the runway or > taxiway? Is this for more precise rendering on a flight simulator? > > Joseph > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 6:59 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 04:34, Mark Wagner wrote: >> >>> >>> How does this differ from aeroway=holding_position >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 06:04, Steven Estes wrote: >> >>> Tackle this a bit on the proposal page, which notes that >>> holding_position as currently formulated has two limitations. First, it's >>> fairly broad. It includes runway holding position markings, ILS critical >>> holding position markings, and interim holding position markings. Each of >>> these markings is used in a different way, and if I were to pull OSM data >>> into a flight simulation environment, the lack of distinction would be a >>> huge problem. >>> >> >> How about modifying the existing tag to aeroway=holding_position:runway & >> aeroway=holding_position:intermediate (or similar arrangement); or >> alternatively aeroway:holding_position=runway / intermediate / anything >> else? >> >> Second, it's defined as a node rather than a way, but to be useful, the >>> full hold line (holding position marking) needs to annotated as it can't be >>> assumed that the line is either straight or perpendicular to the taxiway >>> centerline. If the second issue were the only problem, I'd be inclined to >>> just modify the existing tag to include ways (which appears to be used in >>> 20% of all cases anyway). >>> >> >> & do just that - change the wording to only map it as a way, not a node. >> It would appear, though, that they're currently not rendered (at least on >> the main map - is there an aero map, similar to Open Sea Map?), & I would >> think it fairly unlikely that they ever will be, so the distinction seem a >> bit moot? >> >> Thanks >> >> Graeme >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions
This sounds reasonable to me. I'm new to OSM and didn't know about the subtag option. I'll probably let the discussion go for a bit longer, but this seems like the best course of action. Thanks. On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 5:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 04:34, Mark Wagner wrote: > >> >> How does this differ from aeroway=holding_position > > > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 06:04, Steven Estes wrote: > >> Tackle this a bit on the proposal page, which notes that holding_position >> as currently formulated has two limitations. First, it's fairly broad. It >> includes runway holding position markings, ILS critical holding position >> markings, and interim holding position markings. Each of these markings is >> used in a different way, and if I were to pull OSM data into a flight >> simulation environment, the lack of distinction would be a huge problem. >> > > How about modifying the existing tag to aeroway=holding_position:runway & > aeroway=holding_position:intermediate (or similar arrangement); or > alternatively aeroway:holding_position=runway / intermediate / anything > else? > > Second, it's defined as a node rather than a way, but to be useful, the >> full hold line (holding position marking) needs to annotated as it can't be >> assumed that the line is either straight or perpendicular to the taxiway >> centerline. If the second issue were the only problem, I'd be inclined to >> just modify the existing tag to include ways (which appears to be used in >> 20% of all cases anyway). >> > > & do just that - change the wording to only map it as a way, not a node. > It would appear, though, that they're currently not rendered (at least on > the main map - is there an aero map, similar to Open Sea Map?), & I would > think it fairly unlikely that they ever will be, so the distinction seem a > bit moot? > > Thanks > > Graeme > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions
Believe I just fixed the issue. Give me a shout if the links still don't work. Thanks. On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 1:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Is it feasible to post > https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Public/example.png?role=personal > in place accessible to a public? > > Mar 28, 2019, 6:27 PM by tapes...@gmail.com: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/runway_holding_position > > Proposing the addition of runway holding position markings (commonly > called hold lines). Runway holding position markings are painted markings > on an airport surface that identify the runway safety area. At controlled > airports, these markings indicate where an aircraft is to stop if the > aircraft does not have permission to enter the runway. When exiting a > runway, an aircraft is not considered clear of that runway until all parts > of the aircraft have crossed the holding position marking. The runway > holding position is painted across the runway or taxiway and consists of > two solid lines on the side that is clear of the runway safety area and two > dashed lines on the other side. > > Greatly appreciate any comments folks have. > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions
Tackle this a bit on the proposal page, which notes that holding_position as currently formulated has two limitations. First, it's fairly broad. It includes runway holding position markings, ILS critical holding position markings, and interim holding position markings. Each of these markings is used in a different way, and if I were to pull OSM data into a flight simulation environment, the lack of distinction would be a huge problem. Second, it's defined as a node rather than a way, but to be useful, the full hold line (holding position marking) needs to annotated as it can't be assumed that the line is either straight or perpendicular to the taxiway centerline. If the second issue were the only problem, I'd be inclined to just modify the existing tag to include ways (which appears to be used in 20% of all cases anyway). But, if I change the tag to apply only to runway holding position markings, I imagine that would create all sorts of downstream problems. On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 2:34 PM Mark Wagner wrote: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:27:23 -0400 > Steven Estes wrote: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/runway_holding_position > > > > Proposing the addition of runway holding position markings (commonly > > called hold lines). Runway holding position markings are painted > > markings on an airport surface that identify the runway safety area. > > At controlled airports, these markings indicate where an aircraft is > > to stop if the aircraft does not have permission to enter the runway. > > When exiting a runway, an aircraft is not considered clear of that > > runway until all parts of the aircraft have crossed the holding > > position marking. The runway holding position is painted across the > > runway or taxiway and consists of two solid lines on the side that is > > clear of the runway safety area and two dashed lines on the other > > side. > > > > Greatly appreciate any comments folks have. > > How does this differ from aeroway=holding_position > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dholding_position), > with 9300 uses > (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/aeroway=holding_position)? > > -- > Mark > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/runway_holding_position Proposing the addition of runway holding position markings (commonly called hold lines). Runway holding position markings are painted markings on an airport surface that identify the runway safety area. At controlled airports, these markings indicate where an aircraft is to stop if the aircraft does not have permission to enter the runway. When exiting a runway, an aircraft is not considered clear of that runway until all parts of the aircraft have crossed the holding position marking. The runway holding position is painted across the runway or taxiway and consists of two solid lines on the side that is clear of the runway safety area and two dashed lines on the other side. Greatly appreciate any comments folks have. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
