Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-17 Thread Andrew Davidson 



On 17/10/17 15:55, Warin wrote:
It seams in New Zealand that these were originally tagged as aerodromes 
but they were changed to airstrip to stop the rendering of so many 
aerodromes at low zoom levels.


If you were looking for textbook examples of tagging for the renderer 
this would be an ideal candidate.



Tagging them as aerodromes for me implies some services


Why? An aerodrome is an "area on land or water intended to be used 
either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and surface movement 
of aircraft"[1]. The only service guaranteed at an aerodrome is the 
ability to arrive or depart by air and even then that depends on your 
aircraft.




---
Slightly off topic - youtube video
Landing at Ononge Papua New Guinea. Note the approach over the village, 
clearly showing;
why there are no 'residential' roads and why there are so many showing 
up in the tool for 'missmapped villages'.

why they are not aerodromes


Why is this not an aerodrome? It's got a cleared area that's been 
levelled and marked out for landing and take off and a windsock to let 
you know which way the wind is blowing. Not only that, Ononge has been 
assigned ICAO (AYQQ) and IATA (ONB) codes.



[1] This doesn't quite line up with aeroway=aerodrome as the OSM 
definition leaves out the intent part.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick 
On 17 October 2017 at 14:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ---
> Slightly off topic - youtube video
> Landing at Ononge Papua New Guinea. Note the approach over the village,
> clearly showing;
> why there are no 'residential' roads and why there are so many showing up
> in the tool for 'missmapped villages'.
> why they are not aerodromes
> and why you want a good pilot in Papua New Guinea!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DItuay4Zaws
>
>
Yep, to my mind, something like that definitely counts as an airstrip, not
a runway, aerodrome or anything else remotely resembling or suggesting real
aeronautical construction! :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-16 Thread Warin 

These 'airstrips' are popular in Australia and Papua New Guinea too.

To me they are runways - they are there for planes to land and take off, 
any 'services' might also be tagged.


It seams in New Zealand that these were originally tagged as aerodromes 
but they were changed to airstrip to stop the rendering of so many 
aerodromes at low zoom levels.

Most of them are mapped as simple single nodes.

Tagging them as aerodromes for me implies some services  and official 
recognition, not the kind of thing you want to imply for these 
particular features.


I have mapped them as runways - mostly with a surface tag (unpaved 
mostly). this way they don't render as aerodromes, but they do appear at 
high zoom levels.
I don't see a need to differentiate them with a new tag, the present 
tags of surface, fee, access, length, with, maxweight and possibly 
others may be used to signify any differences.

I don't add any aerodrome tags to them.

---
Slightly off topic - youtube video
Landing at Ononge Papua New Guinea. Note the approach over the village, 
clearly showing;
why there are no 'residential' roads and why there are so many showing 
up in the tool for 'missmapped villages'.

why they are not aerodromes
and why you want a good pilot in Papua New Guinea!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DItuay4Zaws


On 10-Oct-17 03:06 AM, J.J.Iglesias wrote:
Likewise happen in hundreds of airstrips in Latin America, that are 
out of the ICAO definition of Airport and more into the Airstrip.
By definition these airstrip are Not controlled neither approved by 
the Aeronautical Authorities but some of them are depicted in the 
Aeronautical Visual Charts without data of the Landing Strip 
Characteristics...


- Original Message -
*From:* Dave Swarthout <mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com>
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>
*Sent:* Monday, October 09, 2017 9:35 AM
    *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

Just to add some observations about Alaska to this conversation.
Alaska has hundreds of long strips whose surface is gravel or
grass long ago cleared of woods and brush that served as landing
strips for small airplanes. The small airplane is almost as common
in rural Alaska as automobiles are in other areas. That's a bit of
an exaggeration but as I scan the satellite imagery I'm constantly
amazed at the sheer number of these landing strips that are
scattered here and there. And if one checks the USGS Topo maps as
I do while adding geographical features to Alaska, one can see
where airstrips existed in the past but when inspecting the
location with satellite imagery, no trace of them can be found.
Years ago, airplane and airport aficionados using sources such as
"ourairports.com <http://ourairports.com>", have added hundreds
(thousands?) of them to OSM as though they were actual airports.

I also add an admission that, not being aware of any other tagging
or any need for differentiation as to type, I've mapped dozens of
these as runways, sometimes adding a surface tag, other times not.

But they are surely different than one would expect to find at a
"real" airport facility. The more remote variety offer no
services, not even fuel, and are suitable for use by small planes
only (bush planes). Many are abandoned or in need of maintenance.
I would not want to give the erroneous impression that these
runways are actually the same sort of beast an official airport
provides.

I think therefore that there is a definite need to tag such
landing strips differently.

AlaskaDave



On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de
<mailto:o...@imagico.de>> wrote:

On Monday 09 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> I am not aware that OSM in any way defines what an
“aircraft” is.
>
> Why is “aircraft” objective and verifiable, but “airport” is
not?

Now discussion is drifting into the ridiculous.

Depending on your perspective it can obviously be considered
inherently
impossible to fully define the meaning of every word of a language
using just words of this language.  The purpose of verbal
definitions
is to create a consistent framework of interrelationships
between the
words that allows you to interpret them in a way that is
consistent
with other users of the language and identify misinterpretations
because they create inconsistencies.

You used the term 'airport' in a segregative way, i.e. to
distinguish
between runway-like features on an airport and runway-like
features on
a non-airport.  The use of the term 'aircraft' is merely
descriptiv

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-16 Thread Warin 

On 10-Oct-17 02:24 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I'm in favor of airstrips, but I would make airstrip a subcategory of 
runway. So tagging an airstrip as runway is not wrong if you don't 
know any better.


Anyway, is there a way to know if a runway is an airstrip from aerial 
photos? Is grass surface enough to make something an airstrip? Does 
this depend on the country/region? What if a grassy runway has a big 
light that helps landing, is it a runway then? What if there is a very 
small fee to land there. What's the line between them?


Janko


If the surface is the deciding factor from 'airstrip' to 'runway' then 
simply use the 'surface=*' tag rather than have a new tag that has the 
only difference being the surface.
Fee? there is a tag for that too .. fee=*, you could also have a 
maxweight= tag too .. but these things are all property tags - they 
should not cause a new aeroway tag.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-12 Thread Andy Townsend 

On 12/10/2017 14:17, Philip Barnes wrote:

Farm airstrips are a thing that has bugged me for some time.

Proper airports appear at zoom 10 and then other airfields, including 
farm strips appear at zoom 11. Whilst there are significant private 
and military airfields that should be shown at earlier, is there a tag 
to inform the renderer that these are insignificant, you will not see 
then if walking or driving.


To be fair, that's not a tagging problem, that's a (solvable) rendering 
problem :)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-12 Thread Philip Barnes 
Farm airstrips are a thing that has bugged me for some time.

Proper airports appear at zoom 10 and then other airfields, including farm 
strips appear at zoom 11. Whilst there are significant private and military 
airfields that should be shown at earlier, is there a tag to inform the 
renderer that these are insignificant, you will not see then if walking or 
driving.

Or are they mistagged to make them show up too early.

Phil (trigpoint) 
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2017-10-12 12:03 GMT+02:00 Andrew Davidson :

>
>
> On 10/10/17 22:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> yes, I don't think it was a good idea to make so many pages which all
>> contain definitions for the same tag. The key definition page is OK, but
>> the "Aeroways" page would have sense tp explain the concepts, give
>> background information, etc., but it shouldn't be a mere replication of the
>> aeroway key page. If we don't have anything to say compared to what should
>> be on the key page, then we could consider removing the page alltogether.
>>
>
> Please don't do that. Having read all of the aeroway related wiki pages
> the Aeroways page is the best written of them. Based on the discussion
> pages it's also the primary page.



before removing it, we should merge the content to the other pages of
course. I'm not saying it has to be removed, but if the only purpose is
defining tags, rather than giving an overview or summary, then this content
should go to key and tag definition pages. The primary page for tag
definitions should be tag definition pages, and there shouldn't be
conflicting information on overview pages.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-12 Thread Andrew Davidson 



On 10/10/17 22:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
yes, I don't think it was a good idea to make so many pages which all 
contain definitions for the same tag. The key definition page is OK, but 
the "Aeroways" page would have sense tp explain the concepts, give 
background information, etc., but it shouldn't be a mere replication of 
the aeroway key page. If we don't have anything to say compared to what 
should be on the key page, then we could consider removing the page 
alltogether.


Please don't do that. Having read all of the aeroway related wiki pages 
the Aeroways page is the best written of them. Based on the discussion 
pages it's also the primary page.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2017-10-10 12:20 GMT+02:00 Andrew Davidson :

>
>
> On 09/10/17 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> The wiki says (undisputed and since version1 in 1/2008): "A runway is a
>> strip of land on an airport, on which aircraft can take off and land.".
>> Under this definition, you could at most map those airstrips as runways
>> that are _on an airport_ (if these exist). Note that it says "airport", not
>> "aerodrome".
>>
>
> I think you'll find "undisputed" means "unchecked".
>



> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aeroway says aeroway=runway is a
> "runway of an airfield" and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aeroways
> says aeroway=runway is "The area of an aerodrome used for the landing and
> takeoff of aircraft".
>


yes, I don't think it was a good idea to make so many pages which all
contain definitions for the same tag. The key definition page is OK, but
the "Aeroways" page would have sense tp explain the concepts, give
background information, etc., but it shouldn't be a mere replication of the
aeroway key page. If we don't have anything to say compared to what should
be on the key page, then we could consider removing the page alltogether.




>
> If I can only map the runways of an airport but not those at an aerodrome
> then how am I supposed to tell them apart? Whereabouts on the wiki is the
> definition of what an airport is?



agreed, I have changed to wording on the runway definition page from
"airport" to aerodrome now, because this is apparently what is agreed, and
because it was already on the Aeroways page.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-10 Thread Andrew Davidson 



On 09/10/17 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The wiki says (undisputed and since version1 in 1/2008): "A runway is a 
strip of land on an airport, on which aircraft can take off and land.". 
Under this definition, you could at most map those airstrips as runways 
that are _on an airport_ (if these exist). Note that it says "airport", 
not "aerodrome".


I think you'll find "undisputed" means "unchecked".

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aeroway says aeroway=runway is a 
"runway of an airfield" and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aeroways 
says aeroway=runway is "The area of an aerodrome used for the landing 
and takeoff of aircraft".


If I can only map the runways of an airport but not those at an 
aerodrome then how am I supposed to tell them apart? Whereabouts on the 
wiki is the definition of what an airport is?




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Warin 

On 09-Oct-17 11:16 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 09/10/2017 12:47, Christoph Hormann wrote:


Keep in mind that the mental image of an 'airport', 'aerodrome'
or 'runway' or whatever translation the description of this tag is in
your local language differs a lot from mapper to mapper.  So the only
really meaningful definition is something that describes what something
is in an objective and verifiable form.


Yes - data consumers are then free to use other tags to decide whether 
an "aerodrome" in OSM is something they want to display or not.  For 
example:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L2685 



I'd add to the 'grass' runway - 'unpaved' and 'dirt' for other areas of 
the world.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Warin 

On 10-Oct-17 02:24 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


If the same runway-like feature needs
to be tagged differently depending on if it is located within an
airport of not (by whatever definition of airport) that is not a very
good idea for tagging.



I didn't write this definition, but to me it seems to be intended as a 
shortcut to say: "within a managed structure, with associated 
infrastructure, managed, etc.", so clearly the "same" runway in an 
airport and without any airport in proximity is not the "same" thing.



more constructively, you have suggested to tag airstrips as kind of 
runway, what about tagging them as kind of aerodrome? There are 
"already" 14 instances of


aerodrome:type=airstrip

in the data, while the runway key is mostly used for parts of the 
runway (like blast pads).




In these 'airstips' there are no services - taxiways, etc.
I simply tag them as aeroway=runway.
But without any other areoway tags. So they don't get areoway=areodrome 
nor anything else.

If they have services for aircraft then I'd add other tags.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Warin 

On 10-Oct-17 04:13 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Max  wrote:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/42.4014/-76.5581

in this area there are 7 runways. Two are called "field" three "Airport" and
one even is called "International Airport" none of them is paved.

Once again, it's a set of categories that doesn't quite fit the US.

To the FAA, an 'airport' is pretty much defined as the
place where you plan to land. Whether landing there is
lawful is a matter of state law, and some states, such as Alaska,
place very few restrictions on where a pilot may land (with the
permission of the landowner, of course).

FAA does require notification (not permission) if a landowner
constructs improvements to make an airport and conducts
more than ten operations in a day or operates more than
three days a week. That's in order to publish the locations
of runways in the Airports and Facilities Directory.

A bush strip, 2000 x 60 feet, in Alaska, with 4-foot-tall grass
and 8-foot-tall willow in the 'runway', which is also used as
a road by mining equipment, still gets a listing as an
'airport'.

We don't have a well-defined category of 'airstrip'. From
the field where some farmer operates his crop duster,
up to the busiest of hubs, they're all 'airports'.

They may or may not be illuminated,

lit=*
Looks lite that can all be tagged
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aeroway

... and so on ...


The words and values used in OSM do not necessarily have the same meaning as 
the local definitions.

In fact there should be a comparison between the two before use of the data in 
OSM.

An 'airstrip' that has no facilities I would map in OSM as a runway without any 
other aeroway features.
So not aeroway=airport.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Kevin Kenny 
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Max  wrote:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/42.4014/-76.5581
>
> in this area there are 7 runways. Two are called "field" three "Airport" and
> one even is called "International Airport" none of them is paved.

Once again, it's a set of categories that doesn't quite fit the US.

To the FAA, an 'airport' is pretty much defined as the
place where you plan to land. Whether landing there is
lawful is a matter of state law, and some states, such as Alaska,
place very few restrictions on where a pilot may land (with the
permission of the landowner, of course).

FAA does require notification (not permission) if a landowner
constructs improvements to make an airport and conducts
more than ten operations in a day or operates more than
three days a week. That's in order to publish the locations
of runways in the Airports and Facilities Directory.

A bush strip, 2000 x 60 feet, in Alaska, with 4-foot-tall grass
and 8-foot-tall willow in the 'runway', which is also used as
a road by mining equipment, still gets a listing as an
'airport'.

We don't have a well-defined category of 'airstrip'. From
the field where some farmer operates his crop duster,
up to the busiest of hubs, they're all 'airports'.

They may or may not be illuminated,
may or may not be marked,
may or may not offer air traffic control services, which may or may
not be radar-equpped,
may or may not have instrument approach procedures,
may or may not have navigational aids,
may or may not have hard-surface runways,
may or may not sell fuel, offer airframe services, service avionics
may or may not offer customs service (sometimes by advance request only)
may be public or private
... and so on ...
but all of those are attributes that may determine whether a
given aircraft or pilot can operate. There's no formal
minimal level of service that designates an 'airport'.

An "international airport" is a place where you can get
customs service on request. In Upstate New York,
a lot of relatively tiny flying fields are "international
airports" because private planes do cross the
Canadian border, and it really messes up the system
to have to try to slot them in to operate among the
"big boys" at the places with scheduled international
service.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Max 

On 2017년 10월 09일 09:38, Andrew Davidson wrote:

I think we may be drifting away from Warin's original question.

If you look at the LINZ meta-data:

http://apps.linz.govt.nz/topo-data-dictionary/index.aspx?page=class-runway_poly 



their definition of what an airstrip is:

"an area that consists only of a grass (sometimes limestone) runway in a 
remote location"



https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/42.4014/-76.5581

in this area there are 7 runways. Two are called "field" three "Airport" 
and one even is called "International Airport" none of them is paved.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread J.J.Iglesias 
Likewise happen in hundreds of airstrips in Latin America, that are out of the 
ICAO definition of Airport and more into the Airstrip.

By definition these airstrip are Not controlled neither approved by the 
Aeronautical Authorities but some of them are depicted in the Aeronautical 
Visual Charts without data of the Landing Strip Characteristics...
  - Original Message -
  From: Dave Swarthout
  To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
  Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 9:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway


  Just to add some observations about Alaska to this conversation. Alaska has 
hundreds of long strips whose surface is gravel or grass long ago cleared of 
woods and brush that served as landing strips for small airplanes. The small 
airplane is almost as common in rural Alaska as automobiles are in other areas. 
That's a bit of an exaggeration but as I scan the satellite imagery I'm 
constantly amazed at the sheer number of these landing strips that are 
scattered here and there. And if one checks the USGS Topo maps as I do while 
adding geographical features to Alaska, one can see where airstrips existed in 
the past but when inspecting the location with satellite imagery, no trace of 
them can be found. Years ago, airplane and airport aficionados using sources 
such as "ourairports.com", have added hundreds (thousands?) of them to OSM as 
though they were actual airports.


  I also add an admission that, not being aware of any other tagging or any 
need for differentiation as to type, I've mapped dozens of these as runways, 
sometimes adding a surface tag, other times not.


  But they are surely different than one would expect to find at a "real" 
airport facility. The more remote variety offer no services, not even fuel, and 
are suitable for use by small planes only (bush planes). Many are abandoned or 
in need of maintenance. I would not want to give the erroneous impression that 
these runways are actually the same sort of beast an official airport provides.


  I think therefore that there is a definite need to tag such landing strips 
differently.


  AlaskaDave






  On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote:

On Monday 09 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> I am not aware that OSM in any way defines what an “aircraft” is.
>
> Why is “aircraft” objective and verifiable, but “airport” is not?

Now discussion is drifting into the ridiculous.

Depending on your perspective it can obviously be considered inherently
impossible to fully define the meaning of every word of a language
using just words of this language.  The purpose of verbal definitions
is to create a consistent framework of interrelationships between the
words that allows you to interpret them in a way that is consistent
with other users of the language and identify misinterpretations
because they create inconsistencies.

You used the term 'airport' in a segregative way, i.e. to distinguish
between runway-like features on an airport and runway-like features on
a non-airport.  The use of the term 'aircraft' is merely descriptive.
It does not not aim to distinguish runways from non-runways (runway
tagging according to the definition for example can be equally used for
runways for manned and unmanned aircrafts).

So even if you have no real idea what an aircraft is you will probably
be able to mostly map runways correctly based on that definition using
your understanding of the terms 'air' and 'craft'.

And in general you should as much as possible be able to decide on tags
based on *local* observations.  If the same runway-like feature needs
to be tagged differently depending on if it is located within an
airport of not (by whatever definition of airport) that is not a very
good idea for tagging.  A mapper is for example very likely able to
reliably identify a "strip of land on which aircraft can take off and
land" from high resolution imagery but specific classification of the
area this strip is located in can be much less reliable.

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


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging






  --

  Dave Swarthout
  Homer, Alaska
  Chiang Mai, Thailand
  Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com



--
  Este correo electrónico ha sido comprobado en busca de virus con el 
software antivirus AVG.
www.avg.com





--


  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listin

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Janko Mihelić 
I'm in favor of airstrips, but I would make airstrip a subcategory of
runway. So tagging an airstrip as runway is not wrong if you don't know any
better.

Anyway, is there a way to know if a runway is an airstrip from aerial
photos? Is grass surface enough to make something an airstrip? Does this
depend on the country/region? What if a grassy runway has a big light that
helps landing, is it a runway then? What if there is a very small fee to
land there. What's the line between them?

Janko

pon, 9. lis 2017. u 15:38 Dave Swarthout  napisao
je:

> Just to add some observations about Alaska to this conversation. Alaska
> has hundreds of long strips whose surface is gravel or grass long ago
> cleared of woods and brush that served as landing strips for small
> airplanes. The small airplane is almost as common in rural Alaska as
> automobiles are in other areas. That's a bit of an exaggeration but as I
> scan the satellite imagery I'm constantly amazed at the sheer number of
> these landing strips that are scattered here and there. And if one checks
> the USGS Topo maps as I do while adding geographical features to Alaska,
> one can see where airstrips existed in the past but when inspecting the
> location with satellite imagery, no trace of them can be found. Years ago,
> airplane and airport aficionados using sources such as "ourairports.com",
> have added hundreds (thousands?) of them to OSM as though they were actual
> airports.
>
> I also add an admission that, not being aware of any other tagging or any
> need for differentiation as to type, I've mapped dozens of these as
> runways, sometimes adding a surface tag, other times not.
>
> But they are surely different than one would expect to find at a "real"
> airport facility. The more remote variety offer no services, not even fuel,
> and are suitable for use by small planes only (bush planes). Many are
> abandoned or in need of maintenance. I would not want to give the erroneous
> impression that these runways are actually the same sort of beast an
> official airport provides.
>
> I think therefore that there is a definite need to tag such landing strips
> differently.
>
> AlaskaDave
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
>> On Monday 09 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> >
>> > I am not aware that OSM in any way defines what an “aircraft” is.
>> >
>> > Why is “aircraft” objective and verifiable, but “airport” is not?
>>
>> Now discussion is drifting into the ridiculous.
>>
>> Depending on your perspective it can obviously be considered inherently
>> impossible to fully define the meaning of every word of a language
>> using just words of this language.  The purpose of verbal definitions
>> is to create a consistent framework of interrelationships between the
>> words that allows you to interpret them in a way that is consistent
>> with other users of the language and identify misinterpretations
>> because they create inconsistencies.
>>
>> You used the term 'airport' in a segregative way, i.e. to distinguish
>> between runway-like features on an airport and runway-like features on
>> a non-airport.  The use of the term 'aircraft' is merely descriptive.
>> It does not not aim to distinguish runways from non-runways (runway
>> tagging according to the definition for example can be equally used for
>> runways for manned and unmanned aircrafts).
>>
>> So even if you have no real idea what an aircraft is you will probably
>> be able to mostly map runways correctly based on that definition using
>> your understanding of the terms 'air' and 'craft'.
>>
>> And in general you should as much as possible be able to decide on tags
>> based on *local* observations.  If the same runway-like feature needs
>> to be tagged differently depending on if it is located within an
>> airport of not (by whatever definition of airport) that is not a very
>> good idea for tagging.  A mapper is for example very likely able to
>> reliably identify a "strip of land on which aircraft can take off and
>> land" from high resolution imagery but specific classification of the
>> area this strip is located in can be much less reliable.
>>
>> --
>> Christoph Hormann
>> http://www.imagico.de/
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
>
> If the same runway-like feature needs
> to be tagged differently depending on if it is located within an
> airport of not (by whatever definition of airport) that is not a very
> good idea for tagging.
>


I didn't write this definition, but to me it seems to be intended as a
shortcut to say: "within a managed structure, with associated
infrastructure, managed, etc.", so clearly the "same" runway in an airport
and without any airport in proximity is not the "same" thing.



more constructively, you have suggested to tag airstrips as kind of runway,
what about tagging them as kind of aerodrome? There are "already" 14
instances of

aerodrome:type=airstrip

in the data, while the runway key is mostly used for parts of the runway
(like blast pads).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Dave Swarthout 
Just to add some observations about Alaska to this conversation. Alaska has
hundreds of long strips whose surface is gravel or grass long ago cleared
of woods and brush that served as landing strips for small airplanes. The
small airplane is almost as common in rural Alaska as automobiles are in
other areas. That's a bit of an exaggeration but as I scan the satellite
imagery I'm constantly amazed at the sheer number of these landing strips
that are scattered here and there. And if one checks the USGS Topo maps as
I do while adding geographical features to Alaska, one can see where
airstrips existed in the past but when inspecting the location with
satellite imagery, no trace of them can be found. Years ago, airplane and
airport aficionados using sources such as "ourairports.com", have added
hundreds (thousands?) of them to OSM as though they were actual airports.

I also add an admission that, not being aware of any other tagging or any
need for differentiation as to type, I've mapped dozens of these as
runways, sometimes adding a surface tag, other times not.

But they are surely different than one would expect to find at a "real"
airport facility. The more remote variety offer no services, not even fuel,
and are suitable for use by small planes only (bush planes). Many are
abandoned or in need of maintenance. I would not want to give the erroneous
impression that these runways are actually the same sort of beast an
official airport provides.

I think therefore that there is a definite need to tag such landing strips
differently.

AlaskaDave



On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Monday 09 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > I am not aware that OSM in any way defines what an “aircraft” is.
> >
> > Why is “aircraft” objective and verifiable, but “airport” is not?
>
> Now discussion is drifting into the ridiculous.
>
> Depending on your perspective it can obviously be considered inherently
> impossible to fully define the meaning of every word of a language
> using just words of this language.  The purpose of verbal definitions
> is to create a consistent framework of interrelationships between the
> words that allows you to interpret them in a way that is consistent
> with other users of the language and identify misinterpretations
> because they create inconsistencies.
>
> You used the term 'airport' in a segregative way, i.e. to distinguish
> between runway-like features on an airport and runway-like features on
> a non-airport.  The use of the term 'aircraft' is merely descriptive.
> It does not not aim to distinguish runways from non-runways (runway
> tagging according to the definition for example can be equally used for
> runways for manned and unmanned aircrafts).
>
> So even if you have no real idea what an aircraft is you will probably
> be able to mostly map runways correctly based on that definition using
> your understanding of the terms 'air' and 'craft'.
>
> And in general you should as much as possible be able to decide on tags
> based on *local* observations.  If the same runway-like feature needs
> to be tagged differently depending on if it is located within an
> airport of not (by whatever definition of airport) that is not a very
> good idea for tagging.  A mapper is for example very likely able to
> reliably identify a "strip of land on which aircraft can take off and
> land" from high resolution imagery but specific classification of the
> area this strip is located in can be much less reliable.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Christoph Hormann 
On Monday 09 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> I am not aware that OSM in any way defines what an “aircraft” is.
>
> Why is “aircraft” objective and verifiable, but “airport” is not?

Now discussion is drifting into the ridiculous.

Depending on your perspective it can obviously be considered inherently 
impossible to fully define the meaning of every word of a language 
using just words of this language.  The purpose of verbal definitions 
is to create a consistent framework of interrelationships between the 
words that allows you to interpret them in a way that is consistent 
with other users of the language and identify misinterpretations 
because they create inconsistencies.

You used the term 'airport' in a segregative way, i.e. to distinguish 
between runway-like features on an airport and runway-like features on 
a non-airport.  The use of the term 'aircraft' is merely descriptive.  
It does not not aim to distinguish runways from non-runways (runway 
tagging according to the definition for example can be equally used for 
runways for manned and unmanned aircrafts).

So even if you have no real idea what an aircraft is you will probably 
be able to mostly map runways correctly based on that definition using 
your understanding of the terms 'air' and 'craft'.

And in general you should as much as possible be able to decide on tags 
based on *local* observations.  If the same runway-like feature needs 
to be tagged differently depending on if it is located within an 
airport of not (by whatever definition of airport) that is not a very 
good idea for tagging.  A mapper is for example very likely able to 
reliably identify a "strip of land on which aircraft can take off and 
land" from high resolution imagery but specific classification of the 
area this strip is located in can be much less reliable.

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Andy Townsend 

On 09/10/2017 12:47, Christoph Hormann wrote:


Keep in mind that the mental image of an 'airport', 'aerodrome'
or 'runway' or whatever translation the description of this tag is in
your local language differs a lot from mapper to mapper.  So the only
really meaningful definition is something that describes what something
is in an objective and verifiable form.


Yes - data consumers are then free to use other tags to decide whether 
an "aerodrome" in OSM is something they want to display or not.  For 
example:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L2685

Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> On 9. Oct 2017, at 13:47, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> 
> I am not aware that OSM in any way defines what an airport is.  It is 
> likely that whatever line you draw between an airport and a non-airport 
> is not practically verifiable in many cases.
> 
> Keep in mind that the mental image of an 'airport', 'aerodrome' 
> or 'runway' or whatever translation the description of this tag is in 
> your local language differs a lot from mapper to mapper.  So the only 
> really meaningful definition is something that describes what something 
> is in an objective and verifiable form.  In this case it is "the strip 
> of land on which aircraft can take off and land".  And that mostly 
> matches current use of aeroway=runway


I am not aware that OSM in any way defines what an “aircraft” is.

Why is “aircraft” objective and verifiable, but “airport” is not?

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Christoph Hormann 
On Monday 09 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Yes, I had noticed this reference to "practial use", but wasn't
> convinced at first glance. Can you explain how you decide between
> something mapped that isn't and never has been consistent with our
> longstanding tag definition in the wiki, to be "wrong" and at which
> point it becomes "established use"?

No, i cannot - but i do not have to for the purpose of this discussion.  
I am just saying that current use of aeroway=runway widely includes 
airstrips and i doubt anyone would seriously doubt that.

> Could those things mapped as 
> "runways" that are neither on airports (as required by the
> definition) [...]

I am not aware that OSM in any way defines what an airport is.  It is 
likely that whatever line you draw between an airport and a non-airport 
is not practically verifiable in many cases.

Keep in mind that the mental image of an 'airport', 'aerodrome' 
or 'runway' or whatever translation the description of this tag is in 
your local language differs a lot from mapper to mapper.  So the only 
really meaningful definition is something that describes what something 
is in an objective and verifiable form.  In this case it is "the strip 
of land on which aircraft can take off and land".  And that mostly 
matches current use of aeroway=runway.

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2017-10-09 12:43 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> On Monday 09 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > The wiki says (undisputed and since version1 in 1/2008): "A runway is
> > a strip of land on an airport, on which aircraft can take off and
> > land.". Under this definition, you could at most map those airstrips
> > as runways that are _on an airport_ (if these exist). Note that it
> > says "airport", not "aerodrome".
>
> I am talking about the established use of the tag, not what is written
> on the wiki.
>



Yes, I had noticed this reference to "practial use", but wasn't convinced
at first glance. Can you explain how you decide between something mapped
that isn't and never has been consistent with our longstanding tag
definition in the wiki, to be "wrong" and at which point it becomes
"established use"? Could those things mapped as "runways" that are neither
on airports (as required by the definition) nor are they actual runways in
the meaning of the word, could those eventually be seen as "wrong" even if
this happens to occur frequently (e.g. because of "tagging for the
renderer" or from misinterpreting editor presets)?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Christoph Hormann 
On Monday 09 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> The wiki says (undisputed and since version1 in 1/2008): "A runway is
> a strip of land on an airport, on which aircraft can take off and
> land.". Under this definition, you could at most map those airstrips
> as runways that are _on an airport_ (if these exist). Note that it
> says "airport", not "aerodrome".

I am talking about the established use of the tag, not what is written 
on the wiki.

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2017-10-09 10:54 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> >
> > 'airstrip' and 'runway' are terms of art in Aviation.
> > The distinction is important.
>
> Since this still seems to be a widespread misconception:  The meaning of
> the words used for key and value in English language does not
> necessarily have any connection to the meaning of the tag in OSM.
>


it better should, because people are mapping based on the semantics of the
tags, which in many cases are asumed to be the meaning of the word, and
often do not look up wiki definitions, nor are those definitions "perfect"
(they are constantly being clarified, refined) and more seldomly redefined
or deprecated. If the meaning of the word is different to the



>
> Famous cases:
> A National Forest is not necessarily landuse=forest.
> A National Park is likely never leisure=park.
>


these are not so good examples to make your point, as the terms are not
"forest" and "park", but "national forest" and "national park". If you'd
tag these with boundary=national_park or protection_title=National Forest,
nobody will probably complain (if you live in areas with "National Forests"
and "National Parks", you'd know that these are not landuses anyway).



In this case practical use of aeroway=runway includes any airstrips with
> on-the-ground verifiablility - i.e. where you can observe this use of
> the area on the ground and not just conclude this from the fact that
> aircrafts have landed there in the past.
>



The wiki says (undisputed and since version1 in 1/2008): "A runway is a
strip of land on an airport, on which aircraft can take off and land.".
Under this definition, you could at most map those airstrips as runways
that are _on an airport_ (if these exist). Note that it says "airport", not
"aerodrome".

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Christoph Hormann 
On Monday 09 October 2017, Bill Ricker wrote:
> > I see no reason why these cannot be retagged as 'runway'.
>
> NO NO NO
>
> 'airstrip' and 'runway' are terms of art in Aviation.
> The distinction is important.

Since this still seems to be a widespread misconception:  The meaning of 
the words used for key and value in English language does not 
necessarily have any connection to the meaning of the tag in OSM.

Famous cases:

A National Forest is not necessarily landuse=forest.
A National Park is likely never leisure=park.

In this case practical use of aeroway=runway includes any airstrips with 
on-the-ground verifiablility - i.e. where you can observe this use of 
the area on the ground and not just conclude this from the fact that 
aircrafts have landed there in the past.

This does not mean you cannot use a different tag for a subset of what 
is is currently covered by aeroway=runway but doing so will usually 
just result in fairly arbitrary application by mappers so using a 
subtag (like runway=airstrip) is likely a better approach.

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Andrew Davidson 

I think we may be drifting away from Warin's original question.

If you look at the LINZ meta-data:

http://apps.linz.govt.nz/topo-data-dictionary/index.aspx?page=class-runway_poly

their definition of what an airstrip is:

"an area that consists only of a grass (sometimes limestone) runway in a 
remote location"


and given that they are shown on topo maps they would be permanent.

On 09/10/17 17:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I know there are some airstrips in SEQ that are privately owned & no-one 
is allowed to land without permission - should they be mapped as 
possible emergency strips?


There are also charter planes that operate of the beach at Fraser Island 
- should that stretch of beach also be shown as a 'strip?


Thanks

Graeme

On 9 October 2017 at 14:58, Andrew Davidson > wrote:


On 9/10/17 14:40, Bill Ricker wrote:

Runways are permanent and maintained, often even managed.
Former runways aren't runways.
Airstrips are more changeable than seasonal watercourses.


So I guess what you are saying here is that airstrips are ephemeral
and as such cannot be verified? That would suggest that they
shouldn't be mapped.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-09 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick 
I know there are some airstrips in SEQ that are privately owned & no-one is
allowed to land without permission - should they be mapped as possible
emergency strips?

There are also charter planes that operate of the beach at Fraser Island -
should that stretch of beach also be shown as a 'strip?

Thanks

Graeme

On 9 October 2017 at 14:58, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 9/10/17 14:40, Bill Ricker wrote:
>
>> Runways are permanent and maintained, often even managed.
>> Former runways aren't runways.
>> Airstrips are more changeable than seasonal watercourses.
>>
>
> So I guess what you are saying here is that airstrips are ephemeral and as
> such cannot be verified? That would suggest that they shouldn't be mapped.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-08 Thread Andrew Davidson 

On 9/10/17 14:40, Bill Ricker wrote:

Runways are permanent and maintained, often even managed.
Former runways aren't runways.
Airstrips are more changeable than seasonal watercourses.


So I guess what you are saying here is that airstrips are ephemeral and 
as such cannot be verified? That would suggest that they shouldn't be 
mapped.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

2017-10-08 Thread Bill Ricker 
> I see no reason why these cannot be retagged as 'runway'.

NO NO NO

'airstrip' and 'runway' are terms of art in Aviation.
The distinction is important.

While to a mapper or geographer, an 'airstrip' seems like it could be a
'runway, surface=grass, permanent=no, livestock=maybe, lights=no,
control=no, tower=no, services=no, services=ha-ha-surely-you-jest'  ,
the very words 'airstrip' and 'runway' have meaning to the users of
these services.
They aren't interchangable or subsets.
Runways are permanent and maintained, often even managed.
Former runways aren't runways.
Airstrips are more changable than seasonal watercourses.

They're different things, just as "Track" and "motorway" are both
ways, but they're not both "motorways" with different attributes.
If you don't fly or know fliers, the differences may be swamped by the
obvious similarity (thing a plane uses), but no.

Pilots of light planes and ultra-lights that operate from 'airstrips'
will avoid 'runways' because operators of 'runways' typically charge
to touch-down, park, take-off, and just about anything else.
'Airstrips'  are more likely private, use by members/arrangement only,
but also may be friendly; e.g., will let your club members use ours if
we can use yours, and not charge you for an emergency landing provided
no sheep were injured.

Pilots of  heavier "light" (general av) planes and commercial planes
that operate from 'runways' at airports expect the services that
collocate with them, expect and require the maintained surface, and
may face serious disciplinary action they land on a grass strip by
mistake.

The good news is that licensed plane pilots aren't supposed to use
unofficial charts to select landing sites.
The bad news is that in an emergency they could use OSM maps in a
Garmin to pick a new alternate alternate landing site. We should not
make a sheep-field sound like a minor airport they might reasonably
not have heard of but on whose one runway they might be able to land.
Ultralight pilots probably can use OSM-in-Garmin in-flight, its a less
regulated service, and would really appreciate 'airstrip' being a
separate category of feature from 'runway'. They are not welcome on
most runways.

My uncle's aerodrome club used to take turns mowing the airstrip until
he inherited an antique one-lunger[*] mower; now I think he takes as
much pride in getting that old thing running one more time as getting
his plane to work. :-)

[*] one-lunger: Single-cylinder, 4-cycle I.C.engine with fly-wheel.
Think "Burt and I"'s /the BlueBird II/, but on a walk-behind,
self-propelled tiller-mower, the grand-father of the snow-blower.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging