These 'airstrips' are popular in Australia and Papua New Guinea too.
To me they are runways - they are there for planes to land and take off,
any 'services' might also be tagged.
It seams in New Zealand that these were originally tagged as aerodromes
but they were changed to airstrip to stop the rendering of so many
aerodromes at low zoom levels.
Most of them are mapped as simple single nodes.
Tagging them as aerodromes for me implies some services and official
recognition, not the kind of thing you want to imply for these
particular features.
I have mapped them as runways - mostly with a surface tag (unpaved
mostly). this way they don't render as aerodromes, but they do appear at
high zoom levels.
I don't see a need to differentiate them with a new tag, the present
tags of surface, fee, access, length, with, maxweight and possibly
others may be used to signify any differences.
I don't add any aerodrome tags to them.
-----------------------
Slightly off topic - youtube video
Landing at Ononge Papua New Guinea. Note the approach over the village,
clearly showing;
why there are no 'residential' roads and why there are so many showing
up in the tool for 'missmapped villages'.
why they are not aerodromes
and why you want a good pilot in Papua New Guinea!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DItuay4Zaws
On 10-Oct-17 03:06 AM, J.J.Iglesias wrote:
Likewise happen in hundreds of airstrips in Latin America, that are
out of the ICAO definition of Airport and more into the Airstrip.
By definition these airstrip are Not controlled neither approved by
the Aeronautical Authorities but some of them are depicted in the
Aeronautical Visual Charts without data of the Landing Strip
Characteristics...
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Dave Swarthout <mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com>
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>
*Sent:* Monday, October 09, 2017 9:35 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway
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 <http://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
<mailto: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 <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
<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
