Proposal talk:Key:aerodrome

Orthagonal attributes

Surely these values are orthogonal attributes, not a classifier for the whole aerodrome? Looking from the air it would not be possible to see the difference, unless you use this value as some kind of a proxy for "size" or "apparent importance". An aerodrome is an aerodrome; it MAY have commercial (scheduled?) flights, it MAY be used for cargo flights, it MAY have facilities for international flights (presence or availability of customs/immigration facilities), it MAY allow GA traffic, etc. --Csmale (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

"Looking from the air it would not be possible to see the difference" - Right, these tags are about the purpose/function of the aerodrome/airport, not how it looks from the air or it's size on the map. This can be calculated from the area, if it's mapped as one.

The definition in this proposal makes it clear that aerodrome=international is a subset of commercial airports: it's an aerodrome that has scheduled commercial passenger service to another country. Similarly aerodrome=airstrip is a subset of general_aviation aerodromes which lack services and paved runways. These two tags are the ones that I'm interested in adding.

But I thought it would be reasonable to provide a tag for general_aviation aerodromes - this is pretty much the "default" value, since most aerodromes fit this definition, and "private" is widely used - as mentioned, I think we should probably add access=private to these. While in theory "an aerodrome is an aerodrome", airports don't suddently start offering international flights without major construction projects to add customs and immigration facilities, usually in a new terminal building or addition. And an airstrip won't suddenly start offering commercial flights.

The alternative would be creating a bunch of new property tags, like international_flights=yes, commercial_flights=yes, general_aviation=yes, er... airstrip=yes? An international airport currently is aeroway=aerodrome + name=* + iata=* + icao=* + operator=*, so we can either add aerodrome=international or add international_flights=yes + commercial_flights=yes + general_aviation=yes. And tagging an "airstrip" as fuel=no, hangar=no, paved_runway=no etc. would be rather over-complicated. While having such details might be nice for pilots, it wouldn't give general map users much help. --Jeisenbe (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You're going to need some of those property tags even if this is approved. Looking at various airports that don't fit cleanly into your categories:

• Mead Flying Service Airport: it's aerodrome=general_aviation because it's open to the public with a paved runway. But it's aerodrome=airstrip because it doesn't offer fuel or other services.
• Ellenport Airport and Sky Meadows Airpark are very similar airports: a privately-owned runway with no facilities. But Ellenport is aerodrome=private because it's got a paved runway, while Sky Meadows is aerodrome=airstrip because the runway is grass.
• Allakaket Airport is aerodrome=commercial because it's got scheduled flights, but aerodrome=airstrip because it's got a gravel runway and no services.
• Great Falls International is aerodrome=commercial because it's got scheduled flights, but it's only a schedule change away from being aerodrome=international: it's got the facilities for handling scheduled cross-border flights.

I recommend dropping the "private" option (aerodrome=private is just an aerodrome=general_aviation or aerodrome=airstrip that is access=private) and the "international" option (an aerodrome=international is an aerodrome=commercial with customs=yes), and dropping all references to runway surface, airport size, and access rights. I'd also drop mention of any default, because, at least locally, airstrips outnumber improved airports by about 5 to 1:

• aerodrome=commercial for aerodromes that have regularly-scheduled commercial passenger airline service. These aerodromes almost always have an IATA code. If the aerodrome offers customs services, tag it with customs=yes.
• aerodrome=general_aviation for a general aviation aerodrome, one that does not offer commercial passenger airline flights. Usually these lack an IATA code. If the aerodrome is not open to the general public, tag it with access=private. If the aerodrome offers customs services, tag it with customs=yes.
• aerodrome=airstrip for a bare runway with no further improvements. If it offers any services (eg. fuel or tiedown points) or any air-navigation aids (eg. a rotating beacon or PAPI landing lights), it's an aerodrome=general_aviation; if it offers scheduled passenger service, it's aerodrome=commercial. If the aerodrome is not open to the general public, tag it with access=private.

Under this definition, Mead is general_aviation, Ellenport and Sky Meadows are both airstrips, and Allakaket is commercial (and would be general_aviation if commercial flights stopped, because it's got a rotating beacon).

In regards to the "major construction project" bit, many airports have facilities to handle flights other than what they actually handle. For example, many general-aviation and commercial airports have customs facilities to handle private and charter cross-border flights; they could handle low-volume scheduled cross-border flights without much trouble. Some airstrips, especially in the remoter parts of Alaska and Canada, can handle scheduled commercial flights at a volume appropriate for the local community (not every commercial flight involves daily movement of large jetliners -- a Twin Otter coming by every week also counts). --Carnildo (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

> I recommend dropping the "private" option (aerodrome=private is just an aerodrome=general_aviation or aerodrome=airstrip that is access=private)

+1

> and the "international" option (an aerodrome=international is an aerodrome=commercial with customs=yes)

-1. International airports have scheduled international flights. Commercial airports with customs are larger than that, it means they may have scheduled international flights.--Nospam2005 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Status

> Status: Canceled (inactive)

I guess this is not the current status^^. --Nospam2005 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've canceled this proposal due to the issues that were brought up above. I will eventually make a new proposal for different tags, like international_flights=yes for international airports, commercial_flights=yes for commercial airports, etc. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

aeroway=airstrip

> Also, there is a tag aeroway=airstrip which was mostly used in one import in New Zealand to map small airstrips.

I may have missed that NZ bought France ^^: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/aeroway=airstrip#map

Where you're right, it's another import (name=* is usually Base ULM * and sport=ultralight_aviation is set).

> This tag would be deprecated with the recommended replacement aeroway=aerodrome + aerodrome=airstrip - however only mappers with local knowledge should change these tags.

If it's a one-to-one replacement, what is the added value of a local mapper for retagging 4.500 airstrips? --Nospam2005 (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Tagging them as aeroway=aerodrome is correct, since an airstrip is an aerodrome, and will allow most database users to properly interpret airstrips as a type of aerodrome. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)