Hi all, Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the existence of an small airfield can be hard to verify from imagery - but I am also wondering what the value of this unverified and stale data is to OSM. If they were mapper surveyed nodes to begin with I would perhaps feel the need to be more cautious in removing them. I looked at perhaps 30 of them, looking them up on various airport related web sites, and ~70% of them were private air strips with no public access from air or ground. So those being fundamentally unverifiable (unless there is a sign or some structures on the ground that would make it so) I would see no problem deleting them.
I like the suggestion for encouraging additional mapping (runways) if visible and this is already part of the instruction, let me know if that could be clearer. I am not so concerned with rendering - that’s not what we map for. Martijn > On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Christoph Hormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the >> first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is >> obviously no airport or airfield. > > I am not sure here. For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature > is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a > place where aircrafts start or land. This is not generally something > that can be reliably determined from imagery. > > This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features > to place labels and icons but these features are generally too > ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly. > > The real observable feature of an airfield is the perimeter fence or > other form of delineation which then makes it a landuse mapping but > this only works for actively maintained airfields with a clearly > visible outline. Otherwise the observable feature of an airfield is > the runway - mapping this is much better defined and more useful > information-wise than the airfield itself. > > So the challenge would IMO make more sense if it would encourage mapping > runways if they are visible rather than removing an aerodrome based on > the fact that it is not visible on imagery. > > See also here for a different angle on the problems of aeroway=aerodrome > as it is currently mapped: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1143 > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
