Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Joseph Eisenberg
I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.

It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*

Values to be approved:
* aerodrome=international         - already common
* aerodrome=commercial          - new tag
* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
* aerodrome=private                  - already common
* aerodrome=airstrip

Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.

It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
times.

aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.

aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
adding access=*

Comments? I still need to add some examples.

- Joseph Eisenberg

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Warin
On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
>
> This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
> aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
> airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
>
> It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
>
> Values to be approved:
> * aerodrome=international         - already common
> * aerodrome=commercial          - new tag
> * aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
> * aerodrome=private                  - already common
> * aerodrome=airstrip
>
> Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
> airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
> with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
>
> It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
> and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
> times.
>
> aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
> airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
>
> aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
> adding access=*

Here there are 'international' and 'domestic' airports. I think 'domestic' might be better than 'commercial'???

I have no idea what a 'aerodrome=private' is. I think this could include airports used for skydiving .. so open to the public. Arr it is also on the proposal page sorry. It is a confusing value, no idea of a better term. There are also sailplane airstrips used to launch and land sailplanes. The launching may be done by a 'tug' aircraft. They can be open to the public for joy flights in tandem sailplanes.

Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an airstrip for their own use. This use can be to get to the shops, the neighbours, mail deliveries, farm duties and for the flying doctor. This goes beyond the proposaled aerodrome=airstrip, in that it has more uses and also usually provides refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services.
I think the reason why aeroway=airstrip is use is so that it does not render until zoomed in. Yes, a rendering issue taken care of by tagging.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Colin Smale

Point of order, also with half an eye on the "tagging governance" discussion.... Are we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in the wiki discussion page, or both, or what? I suggest focussing on a single platform, and placing a notification on the other platform directing readers to the other platform, if you see what I mean.

 


On 2019-09-10 10:32, Warin wrote:

On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.

It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*

Values to be approved:
* aerodrome=international         - already common
* aerodrome=commercial          - new tag
* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
* aerodrome=private                  - already common
* aerodrome=airstrip

Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.

It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
times.

aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.

aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
adding access=*

Here there are 'international' and 'domestic' airports. I think 'domestic' might be better than 'commercial'???

I have no idea what a 'aerodrome=private' is. I think this could include airports used for skydiving .. so open to the public. Arr it is also on the proposal page sorry. It is a confusing value, no idea of a better term. There are also sailplane airstrips used to launch and land sailplanes. The launching may be done by a 'tug' aircraft. They can be open to the public for joy flights in tandem sailplanes.

Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an airstrip for their own use. This use can be to get to the shops, the neighbours, mail deliveries, farm duties and for the flying doctor. This goes beyond the proposaled aerodrome=airstrip, in that it has more uses and also usually provides refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services.
I think the reason why aeroway=airstrip is use is so that it does not render until zoomed in. Yes, a rendering issue taken care of by tagging.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Joseph Eisenberg
> re we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in the wiki discussion page, or both, or what?

"Both" is probably the realistic option.

We can't require anyone to login to wiki.openstreetmap.org to comment
on this idea, though I do think the discussion there would be easier
to follow.

> aeroway=airstrip

This feature is not currently rendered by any maps that I am aware of.

> Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an [aerodrome] with more uses and also usually provides refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services.

This would probably be aerodrome=private, since it's not open to
anyone else other than the ranch / station owners and their invited
guests, I imagine? Adding access=private would be recommended.

- Joseph

On 9/10/19, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Point of order, also with half an eye on the "tagging governance"
> discussion.... Are we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in
> the wiki discussion page, or both, or what? I suggest focussing on a
> single platform, and placing a notification on the other platform
> directing readers to the other platform, if you see what I mean.
>
> On 2019-09-10 10:32, Warin wrote:
>
>> On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>>> I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>>>
>>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
>>>
>>> This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
>>> aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
>>> airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
>>>
>>> It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
>>>
>>> Values to be approved:
>>> * aerodrome=international         - already common
>>> * aerodrome=commercial          - new tag
>>> * aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
>>> * aerodrome=private                  - already common
>>> * aerodrome=airstrip
>>>
>>> Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
>>> airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
>>> with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
>>>
>>> It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
>>> and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
>>> times.
>>>
>>> aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
>>> airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
>>>
>>> aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
>>> adding access=*
>>
>> Here there are 'international' and 'domestic' airports. I think 'domestic'
>> might be better than 'commercial'???
>>
>> I have no idea what a 'aerodrome=private' is. I think this could include
>> airports used for skydiving .. so open to the public. Arr it is also on
>> the proposal page sorry. It is a confusing value, no idea of a better
>> term. There are also sailplane airstrips used to launch and land
>> sailplanes. The launching may be done by a 'tug' aircraft. They can be
>> open to the public for joy flights in tandem sailplanes.
>>
>> Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an airstrip for their own use. This
>> use can be to get to the shops, the neighbours, mail deliveries, farm
>> duties and for the flying doctor. This goes beyond the proposaled
>> aerodrome=airstrip, in that it has more uses and also usually provides
>> refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services.
>> I think the reason why aeroway=airstrip is use is so that it does not
>> render until zoomed in. Yes, a rendering issue taken care of by tagging.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Tuesday 10 September 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>
> See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

The problem with this kind of tag is that while it can be in principle a
verifiable tag - provided that the suggested values are clearly defined
this way it is still an aggregate score designed for usefulness for
certain data users rather than for good mappability.

An example:

In Germany civil airfields are classified by law
into "Verkehrslandeplätze", "Sonderlandeplätze"
and "Segelfluggelände".  "Verkehrslandeplätze" is pretty much the same
as aerodrome=general_aviation - i.e. can be used by pilots without
prior permission by the operator.  However "Sonderlandeplätze" is not
the same as aerodrome=private - there are SLP that qualify as
aerodrome=commercial because they have regular commercial flights.

In short:  Many of your suggested values are based on properties that
are independent of each other.  It would be more useful for the data
user and easier to map for the mapper to document these separately.

Specifically i see:

* presence and nature of regular passenger flight service
* openness to public from the air
* access restrictions on the ground
* presence of services for airplanes
* surface and length of the runway

And not in the proposal but a useful property:

* restrictions to certain types of planes (like non-motorized gliders)

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Chris Hill-6
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.

It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*

Values to be approved:
* aerodrome=international - already common
* aerodrome=commercial - new tag
* aerodrome=general_aviation - new tag (default type)
* aerodrome=private - already common
* aerodrome=airstrip

Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.

It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
times.

aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.

aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
adding access=*

Comments? I still need to add some examples.

- Joseph Eisenberg
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights. I have used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield to fly from the UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or regular flights, it was used by private pilots for fun (usually termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc commercial flights: specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming flights etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a scheduled or charter flight to or from an airport.
--
Chris Hill
( OSM: chillly)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Joseph Eisenberg
The tag aerodrome=international was meant for airports that have
regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights to another country.

On 9/10/19, Chris Hill <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>>
>>See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
>>
>>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
>>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
>>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
>>
>>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
>>
>>Values to be approved:
>>* aerodrome=international         - already common
>>* aerodrome=commercial          - new tag
>>* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
>>* aerodrome=private                  - already common
>>* aerodrome=airstrip
>>
>>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
>>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
>>with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
>>
>>It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
>>and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
>>times.
>>
>>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
>>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
>>
>>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
>>adding access=*
>>
>>Comments? I still need to add some examples.
>>
>>- Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Tagging mailing list
>>[hidden email]
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights. I have
> used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield to fly from the
> UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or regular flights, it was used
> by private pilots for fun (usually termed 'general aviation') and for a few
> ad-hoc commercial flights: specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base
> for filming flights etc. Private pilots make international flights from all
> kinds of airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful
> distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a scheduled or
> charter flight to or from an airport.
> --
> Chris Hill
> ( OSM: chillly)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On 10/09/2019 08:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*

That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways
that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.

That, combined with whether the object has an iata code or note is
useful for deciding whether something is what a normal person would
describe as an "airport" or not:

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L4812

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
Christoph's comment is similar to what Simon Poole said on
Talk:Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

So the alternative would be to use several new property keys instead
of a single key, eg:

international_flights=yes/no (presence of international passenger flights)
commercial_flights=yes/no (presence and nature of regular passenger
flight service)
access=? (openness to public from the air/access restrictions on the ground)
fuel= etc. (presence of services for airplanes)
surface=* (surface and length of the runway) - length already shown

But it's quite a bit more work to map an airstrip as:
aeroway=aerodrome + name= + access=private + fuel=no + hangar=no +
commercial_flights=no + general_aviation=no + radio=no + ? etc....

Versus just mapping aeroway=aerodrome + aerodrome=airstrip + name

I suspect that mappers will continue using aeroway=airstrip in most
cases, instead of setting a large number of property keys to "key=no"

On the other end of the spectrum, international_flights= or
commercial_flights= would not be too much trouble, but
international_flights=yes/ would be a little harder to verify and keep
up-to-date than whether the aerodrome has customs and immigration
(=international), which can't change as quickly.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
> That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways
> that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.

military=airfield + landuse=military is the standard way to do this.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Colin Smale
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg

To keep things in one place, I have copied my comment on the wiki discussion page together with Josephs response here. Once concepts have been conflated, once accuracy is lost, it is impossible to recreate it.

"An international airport currently is aeroway=aerodrome + name=* + iata=* + icao=* + operator=*, so we can either add aerodrome=international or add international_flights=yes + commercial_flights=yes + general_aviation=yes."

If you tag it as aerodrome=international, you don't know if GA is supported or not. And is a one-off charter flight also "commercial"?

Airports don't need to have their own buildings for customs/immigration, any more than yacht harbours do. As long as a customs officer is prepared to meet the flight, or if there is some other process in place, then international flights can possibly be accommodated.

=======================

Surely these values are orthogonal attributes, not a classifier for the whole aerodrome? Looking from the air it would not be possible to see the difference, unless you use this value as some kind of a proxy for "size" or "apparent importance". An aerodrome is an aerodrome; it MAY have commercial (scheduled?) flights, it MAY be used for cargo flights, it MAY have facilities for international flights (presence or availability of customs/immigration facilities), it MAY allow GA traffic, etc. --Csmale (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

"Looking from the air it would not be possible to see the difference" - Right, these tags are about the purpose/function of the aerodrome/airport, not how it looks from the air or it's size on the map. This can be calculated from the area, if it's mapped as one.
The definition in this proposal makes it clear that aerodrome=international is a subset of commercial airports: it's an aerodrome that has scheduled commercial passenger service to another country. Similarly aerodrome=airstrip is a subset of general_aviation aerodromes which lack services and paved runways. These two tags are the ones that I'm interested in adding.
But I thought it would be reasonable to provide a tag for general_aviation aerodromes - this is pretty much the "default" value, since most aerodromes fit this definition, and "private" is widely used - as mentioned, I think we should probably add access=private to these. While in theory "an aerodrome is an aerodrome", airports don't suddently start offering international flights without major construction projects to add customs and immigration facilities, usually in a new terminal building or addition. And an airstrip won't suddenly start offering commercial flights.
The alternative would be creating a bunch of new property tags, like international_flights=yes, commercial_flights=yes, general_aviation=yes, er... airstrip=yes? An international airport currently is aeroway=aerodrome + name=* + iata=* + icao=* + operator=*, so we can either add aerodrome=international or add international_flights=yes + commercial_flights=yes + general_aviation=yes. And tagging an "airstrip" as fuel=no, hangar=no, paved_runway=no etc. would be rather over-complicated. While having such details might be nice for pilots, it wouldn't give general map users much help. --Jeisenbe (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 


On 2019-09-10 11:14, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

re we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in the wiki discussion page, or both, or what?

"Both" is probably the realistic option.

We can't require anyone to login to wiki.openstreetmap.org to comment
on this idea, though I do think the discussion there would be easier
to follow.

aeroway=airstrip

This feature is not currently rendered by any maps that I am aware of.

Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an [aerodrome] with more uses and also usually provides refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services.

This would probably be aerodrome=private, since it's not open to
anyone else other than the ranch / station owners and their invited
guests, I imagine? Adding access=private would be recommended.

- Joseph

On 9/10/19, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> wrote:
Point of order, also with half an eye on the "tagging governance"
discussion.... Are we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in
the wiki discussion page, or both, or what? I suggest focussing on a
single platform, and placing a notification on the other platform
directing readers to the other platform, if you see what I mean.

On 2019-09-10 10:32, Warin wrote:

On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.

It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*

Values to be approved:
* aerodrome=international         - already common
* aerodrome=commercial          - new tag
* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
* aerodrome=private                  - already common
* aerodrome=airstrip

Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.

It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
times.

aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.

aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
adding access=*

Here there are 'international' and 'domestic' airports. I think 'domestic'
might be better than 'commercial'???

I have no idea what a 'aerodrome=private' is. I think this could include
airports used for skydiving .. so open to the public. Arr it is also on
the proposal page sorry. It is a confusing value, no idea of a better
term. There are also sailplane airstrips used to launch and land
sailplanes. The launching may be done by a 'tug' aircraft. They can be
open to the public for joy flights in tandem sailplanes.

Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an airstrip for their own use. This
use can be to get to the shops, the neighbours, mail deliveries, farm
duties and for the flying doctor. This goes beyond the proposaled
aerodrome=airstrip, in that it has more uses and also usually provides
refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services.
I think the reason why aeroway=airstrip is use is so that it does not
render until zoomed in. Yes, a rendering issue taken care of by tagging.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On 10/09/2019 11:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways
>> that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.
> military=airfield + landuse=military is the standard way to do this.

I wasn't making any comment about what may or may not be the "standard"
way to do this; just saying that aerodrome:type is one of the ways that
mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.

Compare:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McF

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McE

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McG

You'll notice that in that area (and I'm sure elsewhere) that there are
edge cases - "military=airfield + landuse=military" won't exclude
Cambeltown, which has the old IATA code in OSM but isn't currently
landuse=military.

You didn't mention military at all in your initial email, which seems
like an omission.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Joseph Eisenberg
"you don't know if GA is supported or not."

I'm not sure how to find this out. I mean, it's obvious enough when
you go to a small aerodrome and see lots of little private planes
which are not branded as a part of an airline that it's
general_aviation, but if you go to a big international airport there
might be some general_aviation stuff way off in a corner that you
won't even notice from the passenger terminal.

>  is a one-off charter flight also "commercial"

No, that's general aviation.

Commercial Air Transport of passengers = scheduled Airline flights
with tickets sold to the general public.

> Airports don't need to have their own buildings for customs/immigration

In theory? But in practice international airports have facilities to
check baggage and check passports. We are looking for a definition
that an ordinary person will understand. That's why I was focused on
"are there scheduled flights to another country? Can I call up the
airline or go to the ticket office or search online and buy a ticket
for next month?"

I think that's what most database users will want to know, and it's
also the definition of "international airport' that local people will
probably usually understand.

There's certainly some risk that aerodrome=international currently
includes places that have "international" in the name of the airport,
though they haven't had a scheduled passenger flight to an
international destination for years, so that would be a point in favor
of "international_flights=yes/no" instead.

- Joseph

On 9/10/19, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/09/2019 11:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>> That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways
>>> that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.
>> military=airfield + landuse=military is the standard way to do this.
>
> I wasn't making any comment about what may or may not be the "standard"
> way to do this; just saying that aerodrome:type is one of the ways that
> mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.
>
> Compare:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McF
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McE
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McG
>
> You'll notice that in that area (and I'm sure elsewhere) that there are
> edge cases - "military=airfield + landuse=military" won't exclude
> Cambeltown, which has the old IATA code in OSM but isn't currently
> landuse=military.
>
> You didn't mention military at all in your initial email, which seems
> like an omission.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg

Which is likely to cause confusion, because in the United States, an
"international airport" is one that's got customs facilities.  John F.
Kennedy International (New York City's largest airport) and Eckhart
International (a small grass strip near the Idaho-Canada border) are
both considered international airports.

--
Mark

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:10:52 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The tag aerodrome=international was meant for airports that have
> regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights to another country.
>
> On 9/10/19, Chris Hill <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:  
> >>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
> >>
> >>See
> >>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
> >>
> >>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
> >>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
> >>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
> >>
> >>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
> >>
> >>Values to be approved:
> >>* aerodrome=international         - already common
> >>* aerodrome=commercial          - new tag
> >>* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
> >>* aerodrome=private                  - already common
> >>* aerodrome=airstrip
> >>
> >>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
> >>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few
> >>aerodromes with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
> >>
> >>It would be helpful to know which airports have international
> >>flights, and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used
> >>over 1000 times.
> >>
> >>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
> >>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
> >>
> >>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
> >>adding access=*
> >>
> >>Comments? I still need to add some examples.
> >>
> >>- Joseph Eisenberg
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Tagging mailing list
> >>[hidden email]
> >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> >
> > Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights.
> > I have used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield
> > to fly from the UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or
> > regular flights, it was used by private pilots for fun (usually
> > termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc commercial flights:
> > specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming flights
> > etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of
> > airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful
> > distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a
> > scheduled or charter flight to or from an airport. --
> > Chris Hill
> > ( OSM: chillly)  
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Joseph Eisenberg
According to https://skyvector.com/airport/1S1/Eckhart-International-Airport
- Eckhart "Airport" is only open to private chartered flights, and it
has a grass (turf) runway, unattended, closed in winter. It's
certainly not what an ordinary person would consider an "airport". It
doesn't have an IATA code, so that's a good hint that it doesn't have
any commercial airline service.

A general map users is not going to be interested in searching for a
place like Eckhart, unless they are the sort of person who charters
corporate jet flights, or a pilot, and there are specialized databases
for such purposes.

So "international_flights=no", "commercial_flights=no" is appropriate
for aerodromes like this.

On 9/11/19, Mark Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Which is likely to cause confusion, because in the United States, an
> "international airport" is one that's got customs facilities.  John F.
> Kennedy International (New York City's largest airport) and Eckhart
> International (a small grass strip near the Idaho-Canada border) are
> both considered international airports.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:10:52 +0900
> Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The tag aerodrome=international was meant for airports that have
>> regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights to another country.
>>
>> On 9/10/19, Chris Hill <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg
>> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>> >>
>> >>See
>> >>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
>> >>
>> >>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
>> >>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
>> >>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
>> >>
>> >>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
>> >>
>> >>Values to be approved:
>> >>* aerodrome=international         - already common
>> >>* aerodrome=commercial          - new tag
>> >>* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
>> >>* aerodrome=private                  - already common
>> >>* aerodrome=airstrip
>> >>
>> >>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
>> >>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few
>> >>aerodromes with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
>> >>
>> >>It would be helpful to know which airports have international
>> >>flights, and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used
>> >>over 1000 times.
>> >>
>> >>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
>> >>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
>> >>
>> >>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
>> >>adding access=*
>> >>
>> >>Comments? I still need to add some examples.
>> >>
>> >>- Joseph Eisenberg
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>Tagging mailing list
>> >>[hidden email]
>> >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>> > Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights.
>> > I have used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield
>> > to fly from the UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or
>> > regular flights, it was used by private pilots for fun (usually
>> > termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc commercial flights:
>> > specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming flights
>> > etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of
>> > airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful
>> > distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a
>> > scheduled or charter flight to or from an airport. --
>> > Chris Hill
>> > ( OSM: chillly)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend


On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 20:24, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:

That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways
that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.

We have at least 3 aerodromes that I know of (& I know there are others worldwide) where a common runway is shared between an Air Force base on one side, & a civilian airport on the other.

How to map those?

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg



On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 17:37, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.

It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*

Values to be approved:
* aerodrome=international         - already common
* aerodrome=commercial          - new tag
* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
* aerodrome=private                  - already common
* aerodrome=airstrip

Our local airport has international, domestic, cargo, general, private, tourist, flying school, skydiving & helicopter operations!

Which should it be?

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Colin Smale
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick

On 2019-09-11 09:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


 

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 20:24, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:

That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways
that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.
 
We have at least 3 aerodromes that I know of (& I know there are others worldwide) where a common runway is shared between an Air Force base on one side, & a civilian airport on the other.
 
We should seperate physical characteristics (it's a runway) from facilities provided (customs?) and usage modes (civilian and military) and other non-mutually-exclusive dimensions. This discussion is all about how people want to try to map an enormous number of combinations of different aspects onto a very limited set of categories and expect it to suit every case. It never will. We map the physical, verifiable aspects, and not subjective data. A few people arguing not about the objective characteristics, but about what THEY would call it in their culture/experience, is not the best use of everyone's time. The renderer/data consumer should be able to decide which airports to give prominence to; we should provide the data they need to make that judgement. If a map wants to consider all airports with a runway of at least 3000m, an IATA code and customs facilities as "international", we facilitate that by tagging runway length, IATA code and the presence of customs as discrete characteristics. That's the only way to stop these endless circular discussions which never reach real consensus anyway, and can be considered to be "tagging for the renderer" as the tagging is being designed to produce a particular outcome.
 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
I believe we should tag passenger numbers a year. We would not have to tag all airports with this, especially for small airports these might be hard to get, and we do not necessarily need up to date numbers, just a number of one of the past years. This will usually be available for the big airports and the presence of the information (and a reasonable threshold) would make it possible to show the significant airports much earlier while those with low or no numbers could be de-emphasized. I'm sure it would give a fairly good indication of importance.

I'm not completely opposed to different main airport types (military, scheduled commercial passenger flights, ...), but from the mentioned there are known problems, e.g. "international" has been subject to former criticism, because it is not clear in meaning and not suitable for distinction: for example an airport in Germany which has flights to Germany, Switzerland and Austria is a whole different kind of airport than one that offers flights to Hongkong, Houston and Harare.

Because there will often be combinations (e.g. military part of a general aviation airport, or a part for small private planes, etc.) I agree we should better capture the details with several tags for well defined properties as suggested by Christoph.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging