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
