[Talk-us] [Tagging] Aeroway=Aerodrome Modifier Tags?

Zeke Farwell ezekielf at gmail.com
Tue Jun 15 04:57:24 BST 2010


As a side note to the airport tagging discussion, it strikes me that, more
than any other area of the world I've looked at, the USA at zoom 15 in OSM
is littered with airports/airfields.  Most of these were added by the GNIS
import.  Either the US has a much greater density of airfields/airports than
other parts of the world, many airfields/airports have yet to be mapped in
other areas of the world, or the GNIS import brought in a bunch of airfields
that are no longer in operation.

Has anyone noticed a bunch old airfields in their area created by the GNIS
import that really shouldn't be on the map.  All I know is that when I look
at the aerial imagery where some of these airfields/airports are supposed to
be, all I see is a field.  Could be that it's just a grass runway….  In my
town there's one airport that's supposedly in the middle of the golf course.


Zeke



On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:

> Steve,
>
> I like this as a possible solution as well.  Perhaps the admin_level tag
> could be used?  Same as for boundaries.  The challenges in my eyes are not
> making the tagging scheme overly complicated, and making if verifiable based
> on physical characteristics.  In my opinion OSM only needs three levels max,
> and maybe two would do it.
>
>    - One would encompass all commercial passenger airports from small to
>    gigantic.  Generally even smaller airports are fairly well spaced out,
>    except in very large metropolitan areas where there may be more than one
>    (Chicago has O'Hare and Midway), so these could be rendered at a high zoom
>    level.
>    - Another level would encompass minor aerodromes and airfields that
>    don't serve commercial passenger flights but are more than a simple landing
>    strip.  They have some buildings and are still sizeable.  These could
>    probably be rendered at one or two levels lower.
>    - A third level would be only for the most basic aerodromes.  Basic
>    runways or landing strips with only very small buildings if any.  These
>    would only be of local interest and should be rendered at a relatively low
>    zoom only.
>
> We could certainly call these levels 1, 2, and 3 instead of Airport,
> Airfield, and Landing Strip.  I'm just sick of seeing lots of extremely
> minor landing strips rendered at the same importance as O'Hare International
> Airport at zoom 15 on the map.  Do you think more than three levels are
> needed?  Maybe just two: Large and Small.
>
> Zeke
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> IMHO, if the only distinction between them is
>> size/importance/hierarchy, then it just creates pain and confusion to
>> create all these extra words, particularly for non-english speakers.
>> Why not:
>>
>> aeroway=aerodrome
>> importance=1
>> importance=2
>> etc.
>>
>> Make 5 intercontinental airports and 1 tiny amateur airfields. This
>> also avoids the problem when Podunck Airfield is actually an
>> international airport (yet "aerodrome=airfield" seems more intuitive),
>> and removes a whole bunch of subjective issues to do with the
>> connotations of each name.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100614/73c234e1/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list