<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12-Oct-17 09:14 PM, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTACWkb_eQ1L9oY565LqRu25Qq6WcCZ2ZaW9gsVnrYrNJA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">2017-10-12 12:03 GMT+02:00 Andrew
Davidson <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:theswavu@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">theswavu@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class=""><br>
<br>
On 10/10/17 22:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
yes, I don't think it was a good idea to make so many
pages which all contain definitions for the same tag.
The key definition page is OK, but the "Aeroways" page
would have sense tp explain the concepts, give
background information, etc., but it shouldn't be a
mere replication of the aeroway key page. If we don't
have anything to say compared to what should be on the
key page, then we could consider removing the page
alltogether.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>
Please don't do that. Having read all of the aeroway
related wiki pages the Aeroways page is the best written
of them. Based on the discussion pages it's also the
primary page.</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">before removing it, we should merge the
content to the other pages of course. I'm not saying it has to
be removed, but if the only purpose is defining tags, rather
than giving an overview or summary, then this content should
go to key and tag definition pages. The primary page for tag
definitions should be tag definition pages, and there
shouldn't be conflicting information on overview pages.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't think the page should not be removed. <br>
<br>
It should be similar to the highways page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Roads">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Roads</a><br>
A place where the general summary is a things aeronautical. <br>
When you want a definition, then you go to the specific page. <br>
<br>
--------------------------<br>
The problem of any conflicting tag information needs to be resolved
... here in this list. Not by wiki edit wars. <br>
<br>
<br>
Part of why I raise the airstrip/runway issue. <br>
To me the use of airstrip looks to be a runway as far as I can tell
from those places where more than a simple node has been used for
airstrip. <br>
This fits reasonably well with rendering practices as they are not
rendered until zoomed in a fair way. <br>
I think it is a similar situation to the path/footway issue .. and
could be stopped now. <br>
<br>
I have recently added a fair few 'runways', that could be considered
'airstrips' by others. <br>
I have not, as yet, changed any 'airstrips' into runways yet. I am
letting this discussion run and then see what I think at the end. <br>
<br>
Ah.. LINZ definitions found <br>
airstrip = an area that consists only of a grass (sometimes
limestone) runway in a remote location<br>
aerodrome = other airfields licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority
of New Zealand, and also military airfields<br>
airport = those used for scheduled air services<br>
<br>
So the majority of OSM airstrips are from the LINZ import .. and
LINZ says they are runways surface=unpaved and that is the way they
should have been tagged rather than introduce a new tag. <br>
I don't think much of their definitions though. <br>
</body>
</html>