[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions

Steven Estes tapestes at gmail.com
Fri Mar 29 01:11:51 UTC 2019

Is there a difference between holding_position=runway and

Certainly better for simulation rendering.  Without getting down in the
weeds, it also can make a noticeable difference in algorithms where you're
basing alerts on an approach to the hold line.  Hold lines can take all
sorts of interesting shapes.  For example...

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 6:13 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>

> It would be easiest to add “holding_position=runway” to the existing
> “aeroway=holding_position” tag. This way, any database users who are
> already using “aeroway=holding_position” do not have their data broken, and
> he detail can be added incrementally
> BTW, why do you need the line mapped  rather than a node on the runway or
> taxiway? Is this for more precise rendering on a flight simulator?
> Joseph
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 6:59 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 04:34, Mark Wagner <mark+osm at carnildo.com> wrote:
>>> How does this differ from aeroway=holding_position
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 06:04, Steven Estes <tapestes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tackle this a bit on the proposal page, which notes that
>>> holding_position as currently formulated has two limitations. First, it's
>>>  fairly broad.  It includes runway holding position markings, ILS critical
>>> holding position markings, and interim holding position markings.  Each of
>>> these markings is used in a different way, and if I were to pull OSM data
>>> into a flight simulation environment, the lack of distinction would be a
>>> huge problem.
>> How about modifying the existing tag to aeroway=holding_position:runway &
>> aeroway=holding_position:intermediate (or similar arrangement); or
>> alternatively aeroway:holding_position=runway / intermediate / anything
>> else?
>> Second, it's defined as a node rather than a way, but to be useful, the
>>> full hold line (holding position marking) needs to annotated as it can't be
>>> assumed that the line is either straight or perpendicular to the taxiway
>>> centerline.  If the second issue were the only problem, I'd be inclined to
>>> just modify the existing tag to include ways (which appears to be used in
>>> 20% of all cases anyway).
>> & do just that - change the wording to only map it as a way, not a node.
>> It would appear, though, that they're currently not rendered (at least on
>> the main map - is there an aero map, similar to Open Sea Map?), & I would
>> think it fairly unlikely that they ever will be, so the distinction seem a
>> bit moot?
>> Thanks
>> Graeme
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190328/459fe5c1/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list