On May 21, 2019, at 10:35 AM, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
if this is considered necessary?
Similar to riverbank, sometimes the shape (and it’s irregular outline, where it meets taxiways and aprons) is good to have for rendering at higher zoom levels where lines no longer show the proper land usage and areas more accurately reflect reality. anything that takes up the space of a village or a town should be mappable with a polygon in some fashion.
As most airport facilities are already mapped via area (the apron, the overall airport grounds, the terminals, the grassy areas, parking, etc), so having *the* major feature that takes up a ton of space and is also easily mappable from imagery also mappable as an area seems like a common thing to map as an area.
keeping the information on the way (like the ref and other details) and using this :area tag modifier to map the extent of the surface seems great to me.
> On 21. May 2019, at 07:46, Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's much easier and reliable to determine, length, bearing, centerline when mapped as a line
+1, it is easier, because it is not true that width and length aren’t contained in the area, they are just harder to get from the data.
From a technical point of view, a different tag wouldn’t be necessary either, it is already implicit whether a runway is tagged on a linear way or an area, but it could eventually be useful from a social point of view (if different tags are used people might be more aware and might eventually be mapping both on the same object more frequently)