Martins example that the "Faroe Islands have 1 small airport/aerodrome with 1 short runway (1250m) with few small buildings in the whole country" shows that just because an airport is small doesn't mean it isn't important.
Compare the number of airports rendered at Mapnik zoom 10 in the greater Chicago area<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.032&lon=-88.238&zoom=10&layers=B000FTF> to the number of airports at the same zoom when looking at the Faroe Islands<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=62.159&lon=-6.902&zoom=10&layers=B000FTF> both at zoom 10. In my opinion the Faroe Islands map is very user friendly, showing the one airport in the area. The Chicago map on the other hand is very cluttered with more airports than I can count, and two most important ones (Midway & O'Hare) are drowned out by all the others. Ideally I would say that the Vagar Airport in Farhoe should render with the same prominence as Midway and O'Hare in Chicago. O'Hare is much, much bigger but Vagar is the only airport in the entire country. To a person looking at a map of each area, they should have the same importance -- they are each the biggest airport in their respective areas. Many of the other airports in the Chicago area may be of a similar size to Vagar Airport, but they should render with much less prominence since there are much bigger, more important airports near by. This is similar to the concept that the definition of highway=primary can vary greatly depending on the area of the world you are looking at. I'm not sure how we can use things like runway length, size of airport polygon, or annual air traffic to calculate this kind of relative importance. In my opinion it really requires the input of a local mapper. Thoughts? Zeke On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Martin Fossdal Guttesen < mgutte...@hotmail.com> wrote: > What about this example > 62.06, -7.27 (sorry cant get the link, openstreetmap.org is down) > > it is in Faroe Islands, we only have 1 small airport/aerodrome with 1 short > runway (1250m) with few small buildings in the hole country > > *From:* Zeke Farwell <ezeki...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:33 AM > *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools<tagging@openstreetmap.org>; > talk-us <talk...@openstreetmap.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Aeroway=Aerodrome Modifier Tags? > > Steve, > > I like this as a possible solution as well. Perhaps the admin_level tag > could be used? Same as for boundaries. The challenges in my eyes are not > making the tagging scheme overly complicated, and making if verifiable based > on physical characteristics. In my opinion OSM only needs three levels max, > and maybe two would do it. > > - One would encompass all commercial passenger airports from small to > gigantic. Generally even smaller airports are fairly well spaced out, > except in very large metropolitan areas where there may be more than one > (Chicago has O'Hare and Midway), so these could be rendered at a high zoom > level. > - Another level would encompass minor aerodromes and airfields that > don't serve commercial passenger flights but are more than a simple landing > strip. They have some buildings and are still sizeable. These could > probably be rendered at one or two levels lower. > - A third level would be only for the most basic aerodromes. Basic > runways or landing strips with only very small buildings if any. These > would only be of local interest and should be rendered at a relatively low > zoom only. > > We could certainly call these levels 1, 2, and 3 instead of Airport, > Airfield, and Landing Strip. I'm just sick of seeing lots of extremely > minor landing strips rendered at the same importance as O'Hare International > Airport at zoom 15 on the map. Do you think more than three levels are > needed? Maybe just two: Large and Small. > > Zeke > > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> IMHO, if the only distinction between them is >> size/importance/hierarchy, then it just creates pain and confusion to >> create all these extra words, particularly for non-english speakers. >> Why not: >> >> aeroway=aerodrome >> importance=1 >> importance=2 >> etc. >> >> Make 5 intercontinental airports and 1 tiny amateur airfields. This >> also avoids the problem when Podunck Airfield is actually an >> international airport (yet "aerodrome=airfield" seems more intuitive), >> and removes a whole bunch of subjective issues to do with the >> connotations of each name. >> >> Steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
