I'm also glad to see this, and wish I had thought to mention it when I first saw it! I was mapping in Knoxville, TN and there were a dozen airports that clearly didn't exist. Most had in the past but weren't now, so I tagged them with the appropriate life cycle prefix. I also noticed a ton in SW Virginia, like somebody said many in forests and in the middle of neighborhoods that clearly didn't exist anymore. I didn't realize it was such a widespread thing!
Maproulette sounds like a good solution, maybe also add something about looking it up online to make sure it's not just a wide space that planes sometimes land in. Or maybe there should be some tag difference between a proper airport with scheduled flights, a civil aviation airport, and just a field where a farmer might land? Andrew On Tuesday, April 12, 2016, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Elliott Plack <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> I am glad this conversation has restarted. A few of you, (Me, Paul, >> others..) will recall a similar conversation on the openstreetmap-carto >> repo a few years ago where I noted that there are simply too many of these >> micro airports shown on the map. We discussed at great length how the >> relative importance of aerodromes could potentially be used for rendering. >> > > I'm not sure what my original thoughts were but where I'm currently at on > this is if you're in a situation where all you understand mapwise is OSM > and you're in an emergency situation where the destination now is > "anywhere", then OSM is better than nothing, having at least runway > centerlines (and preferably the same for taxiways) and perimeters is better > (you can at least make a ballpark estimate of what *might* be a > survivable landing). This of course, with the tacit understanding that we > are not the FAA (or whatever authority of record is relevant regionally) > and no rational pilot worth his flight credentials would use it for more > than the absolute most preliminary steps of planning. Or as a decently > accurate map for Flightgear, since that flight simulator uses OSM data for > scenery already. > > From the ground, this isn't quite as important other than, say, being at > even a moderately sized airport like OSU in Norman or Riverside in Jenks > (both Oklahoma) where you might meet a friend in their plane at a specific > tiedown and not be sure where to drive inside the airport to the > appropriate tiedown/hangar. Or at moderately large to huge airports, > finding a specific airport-related industry and residences only accessible > from a specific access in the perimeter (common with charter operators, > maintenance hangars, general aviation, military operators, etc; and > probably accounts for at least a hundred miles of near-airport GPXs and a > couple dozen miles of inside-perimeter GPX for me). > > Bonus round a few years ago, attendees to Oklacon discovered the hard way > that Watonga Regional Airport is 1) a runway capable of emergency landing a > small commercial jetliner, and 2) not secured. Plus on at least one > commercial map provider, had it's taxiways, accesses and runways mapped as > a roadway, causing one especially confused person unfamiliar with the area > (or airports in general) to drive the length of the runway. Fortunately, > Watonga's a *sllloooow* airport, and I don't recall hearing about anybody > or any flights in imminent danger (as was the case when Meigs unexpectedly > closed), so the incident only caused one person to be nicknamed Launchpad > for a couple days. So having the airports properly tagged could be just as > important to *avoid* unintended traversal of airports as it can be to > intentionally navigate to a specific airport location. > > >> Given that map roulette is now handling these, I think this is a great >> time to revisit this discussion. If maprouletters can change all these >> point aerodromes to a polygon, then we can subjectively define airport >> importance using the shape size. >> > > I'm all in favor of mapping these as polygons and mapping the > on-the-ground features, and possibly ground-based beacons where the > identities can be independently verified (shouldn't be hard, tune to it on > a capable radio, listen for the morse ident; in the midwest where there's > basically noting but tilled field, these might also serve as a potential > landmark as much as a lone tree does). There's not much point in trying to > map flight restrictions or paths, though, since there's no real good way to > identify from the ground what these are. > > Like lakes and parks, editors probably ought to show a visible warning > that things are Not Right when mapped as a node. > -- 600,000 DC residents don't have a vote in Congress -- http://www.dcvote.org/ <http://www.dcvote.org/about/index.cfm>
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
