I explained it in a diary entry - feel free to comment there or here.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/22419
--
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http
Length of runway would definitely be the better factor. Even for things
where a pilot has had his sectional lost or destroyed, has no radio
contact, but happens to have the area cached on OSM trying to find any
runway to land on (even if it means it'll take a JATO to take back off from
it).
On Jul
I'd say an international airport has customs stations.
On Jul 2, 2014 12:06 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer"
wrote:
>
> 2014-07-02 18:32 GMT+02:00 John Packer :
>
>> An airport is a special kind of aerodrome, and I think it is poorly
>> documented on the wiki how to tag it.
>>
>
>
> From previous discus
But this is not routing along the runway, just a mere crossing with
it. If one maps the runway as an area, car routing would remain
unaffected.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
> On 03.07.2014 21:55, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>>
>> Is there anyone routing over runways today?
On 03.07.2014 21:55, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Is there anyone routing over runways today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_Airport;-)
Cheers,
Michael.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listi
> Am 03/lug/2014 um 21:55 schrieb Fernando Trebien :
>
> But apart from that, I'm ok with mapping both features (contour and
> axis), and indeed I've been doing so. But I'm amazed that major
> airports in the world currently don't do that.
I wouldn't do it, it is redundant and someone counting
Is there anyone routing over runways today?
But apart from that, I'm ok with mapping both features (contour and
axis), and indeed I've been doing so. But I'm amazed that major
airports in the world currently don't do that.
It is possible that width rendering is complicated by map projections.
For
Am 03.07.2014 17:42, schrieb Fernando Trebien:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> you can draw the runways as areas which I'd recommend because it solves all
>> width rendering issues.
>
> I have actually mapped the runway area in many cases and thought of
> elimin
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> I don't like this way of mapping. There might be some overlaps, what if one
> aerodrome has a military and a public part?
Agreed -- I know at least one that is.
__John
___
Tagging mailing list
Tag
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> you can draw the runways as areas which I'd recommend because it solves all
> width rendering issues.
I have actually mapped the runway area in many cases and thought of
eliminating the line representing the axis of the runway because
2014-07-03 16:57 GMT+02:00 Fernando Trebien :
> Except for runway width at zoom level 14 on Mapnik/OSM-Carto,
>
you can draw the runways as areas which I'd recommend because it solves all
width rendering issues.
> - military: used primarly for military operations
>
I'd make this "used excl
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> 2014-07-02 18:32 GMT+02:00 John Packer :
> From previous discussions I think I remember that it isn't clear what an
> "airport" is. Most if not all our "aerodromes" are probably airports, and
> also the helipads are probably airports a
On Jul 3, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> this essentially can be condensed to "length of runway", because this implies
> bigger airplanes, and bigger airplanes tend to fly longer distances. If there
> is a small airfield close to the border, you might have international
> (regio
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> this essentially can be condensed to "length of runway", because this
> implies bigger airplanes, and bigger airplanes tend to fly longer distances.
Not quite.
There are airports with runways having 2100 meters or more that aren't
inte
2014-07-03 13:44 GMT+02:00 John Packer :
> This way we could also take into consideration the "alternatively
> international" airports i.e. airports that only receive international
> flights when the original ones can't.
> I read in wikipedia[2] there are some airports that do have international
>
One issue with the tagging schema that you specified is that it doesn't
make it clear whether the aerodrome is a "public airport".
Actually, I found out there is a better definition for what I was calling
simply "airport" or "public airport".
It's "public use aerodrome".
According to [1],
> Some
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Georg Feddern wrote:
> Did you consider buildings that are - at least partly - raised on
> pillars/columns with a pedestrian area underneath?
I think such buildings should have a tag "layer", no ?
Pieren
___
Tagging m
17 matches
Mail list logo
