[OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Old Aerodromes

Neil Pilgrim osm-talk at kepier.clara.net
Tue Apr 12 14:50:56 UTC 2016

Well, while the use of the data on the 'airport related web sites' may or
may not be valid to use, going around deleting private ones seems somewhat
counter-intuitive - why not simply mark them as private, if that
knowledge/data is open? If they do get rendered, I'm sure there are
precedents for marking public/private ones, and rendering accordingly
(parking comes to mind, but maybe also caves?).

Don't get me wrong - I know that a lot of old/stale data can be present
(particularly in US imports?), and have come across 'schools' which haven't
been so for years, for example. This seems a bit too enthusiastic deletion


On 12 April 2016 at 15:29, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the existence of an small
> airfield can be hard to verify from imagery - but I am also wondering what
> the value of this unverified and stale data is to OSM. If they were mapper
> surveyed nodes to begin with I would perhaps feel the need to be more
> cautious in removing them. I looked at perhaps 30 of them, looking them up
> on various airport related web sites, and ~70% of them were private air
> strips with no public access from air or ground. So those being
> fundamentally unverifiable (unless there is a sign or some structures on
> the ground that would make it so) I would see no problem deleting them.
> I like the suggestion for encouraging additional mapping (runways) if
> visible and this is already part of the instruction, let me know if that
> could be clearer.
> I am not so concerned with rendering - that’s not what we map for.
> Martijn
> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
> >> first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
> >> obviously no airport or airfield.
> >
> > I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature
> > is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a
> > place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something
> > that can be reliably determined from imagery.
> >
> > This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features
> > to place labels and icons but these features are generally too
> > ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.
> >
> > The real observable feature of an airfield is the perimeter fence or
> > other form of delineation which then makes it a landuse mapping but
> > this only works for actively maintained airfields with a clearly
> > visible outline.  Otherwise the observable feature of an airfield is
> > the runway - mapping this is much better defined and more useful
> > information-wise than the airfield itself.
> >
> > So the challenge would IMO make more sense if it would encourage mapping
> > runways if they are visible rather than removing an aerodrome based on
> > the fact that it is not visible on imagery.
> >
> > See also here for a different angle on the problems of aeroway=aerodrome
> > as it is currently mapped:
> >
> > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1143
> >
> > --
> > Christoph Hormann
> > http://www.imagico.de/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20160412/2d95d5fc/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list