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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
