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