[OSM-talk] Airspace & Co.

[Patrick Kilian]

Hi,

> we have this recurring topic in various parts of OSM - airspace
> mapping.
It's really a recurring topic spanning more then just airspace mapping
but extending to DVB-T coverage, GSM mapping and other stuff.


> I'm strictly against it.
Me too, but with the restriction mentioned further down.


> My arguments against airspace mapping are:
>
> 1. Imports of un-observable things that are defined by other people
> should be kept to an absolute minimum in OSM. Airspace definitions
> change regularly and the only way to have them in OSM is to import
> them again and again.
Same applies to mapping all kinds of wireless signals, which is widly
impractical unless you have receivers of standardized sensitivity and
knowledge how to handle them.


> 2. Airspace (since it only rarely has any connection to features on
> the ground) is perfectly suited for an overlay; very little would be
> gained by having it in OSM rather than in a parallel system
> maintained by a flying enthusiast.
Very important point that.


> 3. For the same reason, airspace boundaries cut right across the
> country, through cities, and so on, and provide an unnecessary
> distraction to mappers.
Another good point.


> 4. 99% of Airspace is of almost no significance to non-pilots.
> Arguments like "one would like to know if the house one intends to
> buy is within some kind of airspace" are fantasy.
Same applies to other "intangible" features.


> 5. Pilots would not use a crowdsourced airspace map; they are legally
>  required to have a current official map anyway when they fly
> somewhere. It seems to me that people who would like to have airspace
>  in OSM are mostly flight simulator aficionados, and while I find
> that an interesting pastime, one has to be honest about it: Flight
> simulators are computer games.
That argument is rather special to airspace mapping due to the special
safety issues, but never the less a good point.


> 6. The usual form in which airspace is published is on printed,
> copyrighted maps; it is difficult, if not impossible, to actually get
>  your hands on airspace descriptions that are official and not
> copyright encumbered.
Wireless coverage is not published at all (at least not on any good
resolution) so this point is moot there. But yes we should be carefull
not to encourage mapping things that are only available from copyright
encumbered maps.


[snip]
> My position in that discussion was: If a feature is observable on the
> ground and doubles as an aviation reporting point - no problem, tag
> it. But if something is defined just by its coordinates or a mark on
> an airspace map - don't.
That is exactely my opinion too. Feel free to map VOR and NDB stations.
Map DVB_T senders and BTS all you want. But don't include intangible
stuff.


> I would like to end this discussion once and for all, or at least for
>  the near future, and create a wiki page named "Aviation", to which I
>  would link from the "Aeroways" page and from "Airspace", and I would
>  also close the "Proposed Feature" with a link to that page.
I'd support that move.


> On the "Aviation" page, I would write up the reasons against airspace
> mapping, basically as given above and on the "mapping-for-aviation"
> help page, concluding that mapping for aviation is discouraged
At least mapping of non tangible features.


> On that page I would also suggest that someone who is reasonably
> interested should set up a rails port instance of their own, complete
> with a rendering chain to generate half-transparent tiles that can
> be overlaid over a standard map. And I would even offer them my help
> in doing that.
Sure, using OSM spawn software is fine. At some point we might even have
to think about offering a bunch of overlays (maintained, hosted and
rendered on other servers) on the main OSM page.


> But before I do all that, I would like to hear from the community at
> large - you - whether you share my view. Do you agree that airspace
> should be elsewhere but not in OSM?
I do.


HTH,
Patrick "Petschge" Kilian