[OSM-talk] Airspace & Co.

[Steve Bennett]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> 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.

I agree with all the rest. I would say here that it might be ok to
have *some* limited airspace (or more specifically, flight path)
objects that have broader relevance. It is not unknown, to mark flight
paths near airports on street maps (street-directory.com.au does this
- sorry direct links don't seem to work well).

The best long term solution to this, and other problems, would be to
have better facilities for creating and integrating overlays. Just
like Wikipedia solved some of its scoping problems by telling people
to stick it all on Wikia, it would be easier if we had another
solution: "don't put airspaces in OSM, put it in <storage solution>
and then overlay it with <overlay solution>".

Steve