[Tagging] airport vs. aerodrome

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Wed Feb 16 02:24:08 GMT 2011


On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:02 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>(I know, don't tag for the renderers

Can we just ban that ridiculous, misquoted and harmful commandment?
Taking into account renderer support for current and proposed tags is
perfectly appropriate.

> A finer and more granular/elaborate distinction could still be applied
> (later or in custom renderings), but this would at least help to
> identify the well known and most important ones (in which people are
> usually interested when flying with an airline instead with their own
> private jet).

I'm not in favour of splitting aerodrome into aerodrome and airport if
it doesn't scale to further divisions. It just introduces another
English word which will cause more quibbles about what aerodrome is vs
what an airport is. Then we'll want to split hairs over airfields, and
intercontinental airports - whereas the semantics of all those things
are totally irrelevant.

Just solve the problem once and for all:

aeroway=aerodrome
importance=5

And the best part is, if this takes off, we can apply it to the next
one of these...because this problem is hardly unique to airports. And
it lends itself very well to letting local mapping communities define
their own standards in ways that aren't counterintuitive. Would you
really want to see the only airfield in the whole country mapped as
"aeroway=intercontinental_airport"? No...but "importance=9" is a lot
less jarring.

Steve



More information about the Tagging mailing list