On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:13 AM, David Murn <da...@incanberra.com.au> wrote: > One easy way to split airports is into those with RPT services and those > with only GA services. Most people not involved in aviation will only > care about RPT airports. AFAIK, the use of RPT/GA is fairly universal > with a clearly defined meaning.
How about: aeroway=aerodrome aeroway=aerodrome aerodrome:rpt=no aeroway=aerodrome aerodrome:ga=no aerodrome:rpt=no (the default being both rpt and ga = yes, on the basis that anyone mapping smaller airfields is likely to know enough to add these details) Or I guess we could have "airport" being RPT, "aerodrome" being GA, and "airfield" being others...but really, if the precise, unambiguous terms are RPT and GA, it's probably better to just use those. But I think this is still a side issue to the importance thing. Having a split between RPT and non-RPT airports is clearly a useful thing, but doesn't completely solve it. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
