Runway area mapping?

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

Runway area mapping?

Joseph Eisenberg
I've seen a number of runways mapped only as areas.

This seems like a bad idea, since it loses the information of the
runway centerline and length. Adding a width tag to a linear way
should be enough to clearly define most runways.

The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to map the
outline of the runway, and mapping the "aeroway=runway" as a line
along the center of the runway.

Does everyone agree that aeroway:area is the right way to map runway
areas, if this is considered necessary?

And do we agree that runways should be mapped as linear ways, like
highways and railways, not only as an area?

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

Re: Runway area mapping?

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to map the
outline of the runway, and mapping the "aeroway=runway" as a line
along the center of the runway.

Does everyone agree that aeroway:area is the right way to map runway
areas, if this is considered necessary?

And do we agree that runways should be mapped as linear ways, like
highways and railways, not only as an area?

I must admit that I only ever map the runway as a way, not an area.

On the subject, I've just had a look at a few, & I see that there's now an option (in iD at least) for "Runway number", which then apparently appears as ref=.

I've always put the runway number "14/32" in as the name=, & it's always seemed to work OK.

Is there any real preference?

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: Runway area mapping?

Joseph Eisenberg
I agree that “14/32” is a ref, not a name. Its similar to “I-80” for a motorway.

(In the Openstreetmap-Carto style we render the runway ref, not the name, but only when it is mapped as a linear way)

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:58 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to map the
outline of the runway, and mapping the "aeroway=runway" as a line
along the center of the runway.

Does everyone agree that aeroway:area is the right way to map runway
areas, if this is considered necessary?

And do we agree that runways should be mapped as linear ways, like
highways and railways, not only as an area?

I must admit that I only ever map the runway as a way, not an area.

On the subject, I've just had a look at a few, & I see that there's now an option (in iD at least) for "Runway number", which then apparently appears as ref=.

I've always put the runway number "14/32" in as the name=, & it's always seemed to work OK.

Is there any real preference?

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
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: Runway area mapping?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


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.  

Javbw

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

Re: Runway area mapping?

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've seen a number of runways mapped only as areas.

This seems like a bad idea, since it loses the information of the
runway centerline and length. Adding a width tag to a linear way
should be enough to clearly define most runways.

The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to map the
outline of the runway, and mapping the "aeroway=runway" as a line
along the center of the runway. 

Does everyone agree that aeroway:area is the right way to map runway
areas, if this is considered necessary?

And do we agree that runways should be mapped as linear ways, like
highways and railways, not only as an area?

I agree, they should be always mapped as linear ways, then optionally mapped as aeroway:area=runway if people want to include the whole area.

It's much easier and reliable to determine, length, bearing, centerline when mapped as a line

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

Re: Runway area mapping?

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> 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)

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

Re: Runway area mapping?

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Mon, May 20, 2019, 21:57 Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to map the
outline of the runway, and mapping the "aeroway=runway" as a line
along the center of the runway.

Does everyone agree that aeroway:area is the right way to map runway
areas, if this is considered necessary?

And do we agree that runways should be mapped as linear ways, like
highways and railways, not only as an area?

I must admit that I only ever map the runway as a way, not an area.

On the subject, I've just had a look at a few, & I see that there's now an option (in iD at least) for "Runway number", which then apparently appears as ref=.

I've always put the runway number "14/32" in as the name=, & it's always seemed to work OK.

That should be ref=14;32, but otherwise, I agree.

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