[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
holding_position:runway?

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...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dallas+Love+Field+Airport/@32.8513947,-96.8622508,211m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864e9c34982312d1:0xea741a5750bb2386!8m2!3d32.8481029!4d-96.8512063


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

> 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