On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:47 PM, David Murn <da...@incanberra.com.au> wrote: >> I'm not in favour of splitting aerodrome into aerodrome and airport if >> it doesn't scale to further divisions. It just introduces another >> English word which will cause more quibbles about what aerodrome is vs >> what an airport is. > > Well, wikipedia defines an airport as a place aircraft take off and land > and may be stored or maintained, while aerodrome is a location where > flight operations can take place. Consider a seaplane landing area, > this could be designated as an aerodrome area, without being an airport. > A remote airstrip may be considered an aerodrome, without having any > sort of status as an airport. Some remote roadhouses in central > Australia for example, have an aerodrome out-the-back for light aircraft > that are hopping across the country or flying doctors or even local > resident operations.
Err, as I said, quibbles about aerodrome vs airport. Do we really want the ability to store aircraft to be the distinguishing feature between an airport and an aerodrome? That wouldn't even solve the OP's issue, which was distinguishing between various levels of prominence for actual airports. Using English words with overlapping meanings (and worse, different connotations) just extends the confusion. Numbers. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
