Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
I believe we should tag passenger numbers a year. We would not have to tag all airports with this, especially for small airports these might be hard to get, and we do not necessarily need up to date numbers, just a number of one of the past years. This will usually be available for the big airports and the presence of the information (and a reasonable threshold) would make it possible to show the significant airports much earlier while those with low or no numbers could be de-emphasized. I'm sure it would give a fairly good indication of importance. I'm not completely opposed to different main airport types (military, scheduled commercial passenger flights, ...), but from the mentioned there are known problems, e.g. "international" has been subject to former criticism, because it is not clear in meaning and not suitable for distinction: for example an airport in Germany which has flights to Germany, Switzerland and Austria is a whole different kind of airport than one that offers flights to Hongkong, Houston and Harare. Because there will often be combinations (e.g. military part of a general aviation airport, or a part for small private planes, etc.) I agree we should better capture the details with several tags for well defined properties as suggested by Christoph. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
On 2019-09-11 09:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 20:24, Andy Townsend wrote: > >> That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways >> that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields. > > We have at least 3 aerodromes that I know of (& I know there are others > worldwide) where a common runway is shared between an Air Force base on one > side, & a civilian airport on the other. We should seperate physical characteristics (it's a runway) from facilities provided (customs?) and usage modes (civilian and military) and other non-mutually-exclusive dimensions. This discussion is all about how people want to try to map an enormous number of combinations of different aspects onto a very limited set of categories and expect it to suit every case. It never will. We map the physical, verifiable aspects, and not subjective data. A few people arguing not about the objective characteristics, but about what THEY would call it in their culture/experience, is not the best use of everyone's time. The renderer/data consumer should be able to decide which airports to give prominence to; we should provide the data they need to make that judgement. If a map wants to consider all airports with a runway of at least 3000m, an IATA code and customs facilities as "international", we facilitate that by tagging runway length, IATA code and the presence of customs as discrete characteristics. That's the only way to stop these endless circular discussions which never reach real consensus anyway, and can be considered to be "tagging for the renderer" as the tagging is being designed to produce a particular outcome.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 17:37, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome. > > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome > > This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an > aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial > airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip. > > It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=* > > Values to be approved: > * aerodrome=international - already common > * aerodrome=commercial - new tag > * aerodrome=general_aviation - new tag (default type) > * aerodrome=private - already common > * aerodrome=airstrip > Our local airport has international, domestic, cargo, general, private, tourist, flying school, skydiving & helicopter operations! Which should it be? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 20:24, Andy Townsend wrote: > > That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways > that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields. > We have at least 3 aerodromes that I know of (& I know there are others worldwide) where a common runway is shared between an Air Force base on one side, & a civilian airport on the other. How to map those? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
According to https://skyvector.com/airport/1S1/Eckhart-International-Airport - Eckhart "Airport" is only open to private chartered flights, and it has a grass (turf) runway, unattended, closed in winter. It's certainly not what an ordinary person would consider an "airport". It doesn't have an IATA code, so that's a good hint that it doesn't have any commercial airline service. A general map users is not going to be interested in searching for a place like Eckhart, unless they are the sort of person who charters corporate jet flights, or a pilot, and there are specialized databases for such purposes. So "international_flights=no", "commercial_flights=no" is appropriate for aerodromes like this. On 9/11/19, Mark Wagner wrote: > > Which is likely to cause confusion, because in the United States, an > "international airport" is one that's got customs facilities. John F. > Kennedy International (New York City's largest airport) and Eckhart > International (a small grass strip near the Idaho-Canada border) are > both considered international airports. > > -- > Mark > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:10:52 +0900 > Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > >> The tag aerodrome=international was meant for airports that have >> regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights to another country. >> >> On 9/10/19, Chris Hill wrote: >> > On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg >> > wrote: >> >>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome. >> >> >> >>See >> >>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome >> >> >> >>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an >> >>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial >> >>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip. >> >> >> >>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=* >> >> >> >>Values to be approved: >> >>* aerodrome=international - already common >> >>* aerodrome=commercial - new tag >> >>* aerodrome=general_aviation - new tag (default type) >> >>* aerodrome=private - already common >> >>* aerodrome=airstrip >> >> >> >>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial >> >>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few >> >>aerodromes with an IATA code do not have commercial flights. >> >> >> >>It would be helpful to know which airports have international >> >>flights, and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used >> >>over 1000 times. >> >> >> >>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an >> >>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome. >> >> >> >>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending >> >>adding access=* >> >> >> >>Comments? I still need to add some examples. >> >> >> >>- Joseph Eisenberg >> >> >> >>___ >> >>Tagging mailing list >> >>Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > >> > Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights. >> > I have used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield >> > to fly from the UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or >> > regular flights, it was used by private pilots for fun (usually >> > termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc commercial flights: >> > specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming flights >> > etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of >> > airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful >> > distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a >> > scheduled or charter flight to or from an airport. -- >> > Chris Hill >> > ( OSM: chillly) >> >> ___ >> 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] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
Which is likely to cause confusion, because in the United States, an "international airport" is one that's got customs facilities. John F. Kennedy International (New York City's largest airport) and Eckhart International (a small grass strip near the Idaho-Canada border) are both considered international airports. -- Mark On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:10:52 +0900 Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The tag aerodrome=international was meant for airports that have > regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights to another country. > > On 9/10/19, Chris Hill wrote: > > On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg > > wrote: > >>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome. > >> > >>See > >>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome > >> > >>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an > >>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial > >>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip. > >> > >>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=* > >> > >>Values to be approved: > >>* aerodrome=international - already common > >>* aerodrome=commercial - new tag > >>* aerodrome=general_aviation - new tag (default type) > >>* aerodrome=private - already common > >>* aerodrome=airstrip > >> > >>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial > >>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few > >>aerodromes with an IATA code do not have commercial flights. > >> > >>It would be helpful to know which airports have international > >>flights, and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used > >>over 1000 times. > >> > >>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an > >>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome. > >> > >>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending > >>adding access=* > >> > >>Comments? I still need to add some examples. > >> > >>- Joseph Eisenberg > >> > >>___ > >>Tagging mailing list > >>Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights. > > I have used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield > > to fly from the UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or > > regular flights, it was used by private pilots for fun (usually > > termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc commercial flights: > > specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming flights > > etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of > > airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful > > distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a > > scheduled or charter flight to or from an airport. -- > > Chris Hill > > ( OSM: chillly) > > ___ > 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] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
"you don't know if GA is supported or not." I'm not sure how to find this out. I mean, it's obvious enough when you go to a small aerodrome and see lots of little private planes which are not branded as a part of an airline that it's general_aviation, but if you go to a big international airport there might be some general_aviation stuff way off in a corner that you won't even notice from the passenger terminal. > is a one-off charter flight also "commercial" No, that's general aviation. Commercial Air Transport of passengers = scheduled Airline flights with tickets sold to the general public. > Airports don't need to have their own buildings for customs/immigration In theory? But in practice international airports have facilities to check baggage and check passports. We are looking for a definition that an ordinary person will understand. That's why I was focused on "are there scheduled flights to another country? Can I call up the airline or go to the ticket office or search online and buy a ticket for next month?" I think that's what most database users will want to know, and it's also the definition of "international airport' that local people will probably usually understand. There's certainly some risk that aerodrome=international currently includes places that have "international" in the name of the airport, though they haven't had a scheduled passenger flight to an international destination for years, so that would be a point in favor of "international_flights=yes/no" instead. - Joseph On 9/10/19, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 10/09/2019 11:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >>> That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways >>> that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields. >> military=airfield + landuse=military is the standard way to do this. > > I wasn't making any comment about what may or may not be the "standard" > way to do this; just saying that aerodrome:type is one of the ways that > mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields. > > Compare: > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McF > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McE > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McG > > You'll notice that in that area (and I'm sure elsewhere) that there are > edge cases - "military=airfield + landuse=military" won't exclude > Cambeltown, which has the old IATA code in OSM but isn't currently > landuse=military. > > You didn't mention military at all in your initial email, which seems > like an omission. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > ___ > 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] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
On 10/09/2019 11:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields. military=airfield + landuse=military is the standard way to do this. I wasn't making any comment about what may or may not be the "standard" way to do this; just saying that aerodrome:type is one of the ways that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields. Compare: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McF https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McE https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McG You'll notice that in that area (and I'm sure elsewhere) that there are edge cases - "military=airfield + landuse=military" won't exclude Cambeltown, which has the old IATA code in OSM but isn't currently landuse=military. You didn't mention military at all in your initial email, which seems like an omission. Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
To keep things in one place, I have copied my comment on the wiki discussion page together with Josephs response here. Once concepts have been conflated, once accuracy is lost, it is impossible to recreate it. > "An international airport currently is aeroway [1]=aerodrome [2] + name [3]=* > + iata [4]=* + icao [5]=* + operator [6]=*, so we can either add aerodrome > [7]=international [8] or add international_flights [9]=yes + > commercial_flights [10]=yes + general_aviation [11]=yes." If you tag it as aerodrome=international, you don't know if GA is supported or not. And is a one-off charter flight also "commercial"? Airports don't need to have their own buildings for customs/immigration, any more than yacht harbours do. As long as a customs officer is prepared to meet the flight, or if there is some other process in place, then international flights can possibly be accommodated. === Surely these values are orthogonal attributes, not a classifier for the whole aerodrome? Looking from the air it would not be possible to see the difference, unless you use this value as some kind of a proxy for "size" or "apparent importance". An aerodrome is an aerodrome; it MAY have commercial (scheduled?) flights, it MAY be used for cargo flights, it MAY have facilities for international flights (presence or availability of customs/immigration facilities), it MAY allow GA traffic, etc. --Csmale [12] (talk [13]) 08:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "Looking from the air it would not be possible to see the difference" - Right, these tags are about the purpose/function of the aerodrome/airport, not how it looks from the air or it's size on the map. This can be calculated from the area, if it's mapped as one. The definition in this proposal makes it clear that aerodrome [7]=international [8] is a subset of commercial airports: it's an aerodrome that has scheduled commercial passenger service to another country. Similarly aerodrome [7]=airstrip [14] is a subset of general_aviation aerodromes which lack services and paved runways. These two tags are the ones that I'm interested in adding. But I thought it would be reasonable to provide a tag for general_aviation aerodromes - this is pretty much the "default" value, since most aerodromes fit this definition, and "private" is widely used - as mentioned, I think we should probably add access [15]=private [16] to these. While in theory "an aerodrome is an aerodrome", airports don't suddently start offering international flights without major construction projects to add customs and immigration facilities, usually in a new terminal building or addition. And an airstrip won't suddenly start offering commercial flights. The alternative would be creating a bunch of new property tags, like international_flights=yes, commercial_flights=yes, general_aviation=yes, er... airstrip=yes? An international airport currently is aeroway [1]=aerodrome [2] + name [3]=* + iata [4]=* + icao [5]=* + operator [6]=*, so we can either add aerodrome [7]=international [8] or add international_flights [9]=yes + commercial_flights [10]=yes + general_aviation [11]=yes. And tagging an "airstrip" as fuel=no, hangar=no, paved_runway=no etc. would be rather over-complicated. While having such details might be nice for pilots, it wouldn't give general map users much help. --Jeisenbe [17] (talk [18]) 10:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC) On 2019-09-10 11:14, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> re we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in the wiki discussion >> page, or both, or what? > > "Both" is probably the realistic option. > > We can't require anyone to login to wiki.openstreetmap.org to comment > on this idea, though I do think the discussion there would be easier > to follow. > >> aeroway=airstrip > > This feature is not currently rendered by any maps that I am aware of. > >> Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an [aerodrome] with more uses and >> also usually provides refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services. > > This would probably be aerodrome=private, since it's not open to > anyone else other than the ranch / station owners and their invited > guests, I imagine? Adding access=private would be recommended. > > - Joseph > > On 9/10/19, Colin Smale wrote: Point of order, also > with half an eye on the "tagging governance" > discussion Are we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in > the wiki discussion page, or both, or what? I suggest focussing on a > single platform, and placing a notification on the other platform > directing readers to the other platform, if you see what I mean. > > On 2019-09-10 10:32, Warin wrote: > > On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome. > > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome > > This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an > aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial > airport, general aviation
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
> That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways > that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields. military=airfield + landuse=military is the standard way to do this. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
Christoph's comment is similar to what Simon Poole said on Talk:Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome So the alternative would be to use several new property keys instead of a single key, eg: international_flights=yes/no (presence of international passenger flights) commercial_flights=yes/no (presence and nature of regular passenger flight service) access=? (openness to public from the air/access restrictions on the ground) fuel= etc. (presence of services for airplanes) surface=* (surface and length of the runway) - length already shown But it's quite a bit more work to map an airstrip as: aeroway=aerodrome + name= + access=private + fuel=no + hangar=no + commercial_flights=no + general_aviation=no + radio=no + ? etc Versus just mapping aeroway=aerodrome + aerodrome=airstrip + name I suspect that mappers will continue using aeroway=airstrip in most cases, instead of setting a large number of property keys to "key=no" On the other end of the spectrum, international_flights= or commercial_flights= would not be too much trouble, but international_flights=yes/ would be a little harder to verify and keep up-to-date than whether the aerodrome has customs and immigration (=international), which can't change as quickly. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
On 10/09/2019 08:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=* That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields. That, combined with whether the object has an iata code or note is useful for deciding whether something is what a normal person would describe as an "airport" or not: https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L4812 Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
The tag aerodrome=international was meant for airports that have regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights to another country. On 9/10/19, Chris Hill wrote: > On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: >>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome. >> >>See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome >> >>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an >>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial >>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip. >> >>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=* >> >>Values to be approved: >>* aerodrome=international - already common >>* aerodrome=commercial - new tag >>* aerodrome=general_aviation - new tag (default type) >>* aerodrome=private - already common >>* aerodrome=airstrip >> >>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial >>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes >>with an IATA code do not have commercial flights. >> >>It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights, >>and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000 >>times. >> >>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an >>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome. >> >>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending >>adding access=* >> >>Comments? I still need to add some examples. >> >>- Joseph Eisenberg >> >>___ >>Tagging mailing list >>Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights. I have > used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield to fly from the > UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or regular flights, it was used > by private pilots for fun (usually termed 'general aviation') and for a few > ad-hoc commercial flights: specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base > for filming flights etc. Private pilots make international flights from all > kinds of airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful > distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a scheduled or > charter flight to or from an airport. > -- > Chris Hill > ( OSM: chillly) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome. > >See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome > >This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an >aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial >airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip. > >It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=* > >Values to be approved: >* aerodrome=international - already common >* aerodrome=commercial - new tag >* aerodrome=general_aviation - new tag (default type) >* aerodrome=private - already common >* aerodrome=airstrip > >Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial >airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes >with an IATA code do not have commercial flights. > >It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights, >and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000 >times. > >aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an >airstrip is still a type of aerodrome. > >aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending >adding access=* > >Comments? I still need to add some examples. > >- Joseph Eisenberg > >___ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights. I have used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield to fly from the UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or regular flights, it was used by private pilots for fun (usually termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc commercial flights: specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming flights etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a scheduled or charter flight to or from an airport. -- Chris Hill ( OSM: chillly)___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
On Tuesday 10 September 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome. > > See > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome The problem with this kind of tag is that while it can be in principle a verifiable tag - provided that the suggested values are clearly defined this way it is still an aggregate score designed for usefulness for certain data users rather than for good mappability. An example: In Germany civil airfields are classified by law into "Verkehrslandeplätze", "Sonderlandeplätze" and "Segelfluggelände". "Verkehrslandeplätze" is pretty much the same as aerodrome=general_aviation - i.e. can be used by pilots without prior permission by the operator. However "Sonderlandeplätze" is not the same as aerodrome=private - there are SLP that qualify as aerodrome=commercial because they have regular commercial flights. In short: Many of your suggested values are based on properties that are independent of each other. It would be more useful for the data user and easier to map for the mapper to document these separately. Specifically i see: * presence and nature of regular passenger flight service * openness to public from the air * access restrictions on the ground * presence of services for airplanes * surface and length of the runway And not in the proposal but a useful property: * restrictions to certain types of planes (like non-motorized gliders) -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
> re we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in the wiki discussion > page, or both, or what? "Both" is probably the realistic option. We can't require anyone to login to wiki.openstreetmap.org to comment on this idea, though I do think the discussion there would be easier to follow. > aeroway=airstrip This feature is not currently rendered by any maps that I am aware of. > Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an [aerodrome] with more uses and also > usually provides refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services. This would probably be aerodrome=private, since it's not open to anyone else other than the ranch / station owners and their invited guests, I imagine? Adding access=private would be recommended. - Joseph On 9/10/19, Colin Smale wrote: > Point of order, also with half an eye on the "tagging governance" > discussion Are we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in > the wiki discussion page, or both, or what? I suggest focussing on a > single platform, and placing a notification on the other platform > directing readers to the other platform, if you see what I mean. > > On 2019-09-10 10:32, Warin wrote: > >> On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> >>> I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome. >>> >>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome >>> >>> This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an >>> aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial >>> airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip. >>> >>> It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=* >>> >>> Values to be approved: >>> * aerodrome=international - already common >>> * aerodrome=commercial - new tag >>> * aerodrome=general_aviation - new tag (default type) >>> * aerodrome=private - already common >>> * aerodrome=airstrip >>> >>> Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial >>> airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes >>> with an IATA code do not have commercial flights. >>> >>> It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights, >>> and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000 >>> times. >>> >>> aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an >>> airstrip is still a type of aerodrome. >>> >>> aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending >>> adding access=* >> >> Here there are 'international' and 'domestic' airports. I think 'domestic' >> might be better than 'commercial'??? >> >> I have no idea what a 'aerodrome=private' is. I think this could include >> airports used for skydiving .. so open to the public. Arr it is also on >> the proposal page sorry. It is a confusing value, no idea of a better >> term. There are also sailplane airstrips used to launch and land >> sailplanes. The launching may be done by a 'tug' aircraft. They can be >> open to the public for joy flights in tandem sailplanes. >> >> Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an airstrip for their own use. This >> use can be to get to the shops, the neighbours, mail deliveries, farm >> duties and for the flying doctor. This goes beyond the proposaled >> aerodrome=airstrip, in that it has more uses and also usually provides >> refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services. >> I think the reason why aeroway=airstrip is use is so that it does not >> render until zoomed in. Yes, a rendering issue taken care of by 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] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
Point of order, also with half an eye on the "tagging governance" discussion Are we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in the wiki discussion page, or both, or what? I suggest focussing on a single platform, and placing a notification on the other platform directing readers to the other platform, if you see what I mean. On 2019-09-10 10:32, Warin wrote: > On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > >> I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome. >> >> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome >> >> This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an >> aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial >> airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip. >> >> It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=* >> >> Values to be approved: >> * aerodrome=international - already common >> * aerodrome=commercial - new tag >> * aerodrome=general_aviation - new tag (default type) >> * aerodrome=private - already common >> * aerodrome=airstrip >> >> Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial >> airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes >> with an IATA code do not have commercial flights. >> >> It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights, >> and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000 >> times. >> >> aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an >> airstrip is still a type of aerodrome. >> >> aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending >> adding access=* > > Here there are 'international' and 'domestic' airports. I think 'domestic' > might be better than 'commercial'??? > > I have no idea what a 'aerodrome=private' is. I think this could include > airports used for skydiving .. so open to the public. Arr it is also on the > proposal page sorry. It is a confusing value, no idea of a better term. There > are also sailplane airstrips used to launch and land sailplanes. The > launching may be done by a 'tug' aircraft. They can be open to the public for > joy flights in tandem sailplanes. > > Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an airstrip for their own use. This > use can be to get to the shops, the neighbours, mail deliveries, farm duties > and for the flying doctor. This goes beyond the proposaled > aerodrome=airstrip, in that it has more uses and also usually provides > refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services. > I think the reason why aeroway=airstrip is use is so that it does not render > until zoomed in. Yes, a rendering issue taken care of by 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] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip. It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=* Values to be approved: * aerodrome=international - already common * aerodrome=commercial - new tag * aerodrome=general_aviation - new tag (default type) * aerodrome=private - already common * aerodrome=airstrip Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes with an IATA code do not have commercial flights. It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights, and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000 times. aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an airstrip is still a type of aerodrome. aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending adding access=* Here there are 'international' and 'domestic' airports. I think 'domestic' might be better than 'commercial'??? I have no idea what a 'aerodrome=private' is. I think this could include airports used for skydiving .. so open to the public. Arr it is also on the proposal page sorry. It is a confusing value, no idea of a better term. There are also sailplane airstrips used to launch and land sailplanes. The launching may be done by a 'tug' aircraft. They can be open to the public for joy flights in tandem sailplanes. Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an airstrip for their own use. This use can be to get to the shops, the neighbours, mail deliveries, farm duties and for the flying doctor. This goes beyond the proposaled aerodrome=airstrip, in that it has more uses and also usually provides refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services. I think the reason why aeroway=airstrip is use is so that it does not render until zoomed in. Yes, a rendering issue taken care of by tagging. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
