Proposal talk:Aeroway=holding position line

No need for different tags on nodes and lines?

I don't understand the conflict why the tag can't be used on nodes as well as lines at the same time. For example, we also do it with barriers like barrier=kerb or barrier=bollard: these can be lines whose intersection nodes with roads and paths can get the tag again (then ideally with further attributes like bollard=foldable, kerb=lowered etc.). Whether a feature with the attribute aeroway=holding_position is a point (mainly for routing) or a line (mainly for rendering) is determined by it's geometry. --Supaplex030 (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Supaplex030 Just to explain how I came up with it: apart from what I wrote in the "Rationale" section, it was also based on an real world experience seeing my edits to add aeroway=holding_position as ways being replaced by another user with nodes. Of course, that action might have been spurred by the issue opened in the iD thread (https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/issues/572#issuecomment-1234548407) you commented on, and my own initial ignorance not leaving the nodes and replacing them with ways only. This experience also made me think about the features, their purpose, and whether it wouldn't be better to make a clearer distinction between the two types of objects by using a new tag, as not only their usage varies, but also their desired properties (like direction). A secondary desire was to integrate some stuff I had put in the "Discussion" section of the original https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:aeroway%3Dholding_position page, where I explained the need for a defined direction to holding position lines, that was missing from the original page.

But anyway, you seem to make a strong point here with the barrier=kerb analogy, and I can see how that also fits here. So maybe you are right, and I should simply integrate those recommendations on the original page, and drop this proposal. However, in that case, it would be desirable to also more clearly (as I already did on the "Proposal" page) state it is valid and even recommended to tag holding positions as both nodes and ways. And additionally, to indeed have iD's current erroneous tag validation be corrected to be in line with Wiki, to minimize a chance of editing wars around these features (in case people tag only one type, ways, as the holding position object).--Mboeringa (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, with clear documentation and recommendations, there will (hopefully) be no more edit wars like this. I think different attributes on nodes and lines are OK, since - as I said - the geometry is always clearly evaluable.

If you are in doubt, you could also discuss this issue on the international tagging mailing list. --Supaplex030 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am not really in doubt. Your arguing makes sense, so integrating the desired changes I see as necessary (like clear recommendation for standard direction of a line version of holding positions) in the original page seems logical. However, I wonder if there are any other (QA) tools out there that also "force" holding positions as nodes. If so, there is a risk that despite clearer recommendations, some people will continue to remove holding positions as way objects. Do you possibly know of any other issues besides iD?--Mboeringa (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Supaplex030 I have now noticed that in JOSM, creating a way and node object, where the node object is part of the way, and adding the same tags to the node and way (as intended), generates a JOSM validation warning about "Nodes duplicating tags of their parent way". This seems to be a generic warning generated in these cases, but is undesirable to have here, as it puts another incentive to falsely "correct" this situation. This generic warning does make me wonder though, if sticking with the proposed new tag "aeroway=holding_position_line" isn't the better option though. I would really like to avoid generating more of these generic validation warnings in editor applications with incentives to "fix" stuff that shouldn't be fixed at all, or needing to file to many "enhancement" requests to well established editor tools like JOSM. The separate tag avoids these problems. What is your perspective on this?--Mboeringa (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

One notable difference as well with the barrier=kerb analogy is that in the case of holding positions, the tags on the node and way are intentionally the same (although maybe in the future may diverge with further tagging, e.g. color tag for painted lines?), while in the case of kerbs, already from your example, the node usually has some other tags distinguishing it. A quick test also showed that in that case of the kerb node and kerb way having a different tag set, no JOSM validation warning is generated. It is only when the tag sets are totally identical, like here with holding positions, that the warning is generated. This would again plead for a separate tag in this case, as the analogy with the kerbs is not entirely valid.--Mboeringa (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You should use eg a road_marking=* for aviation . These aeroway=* features should be points on lines for routing. There doesn't need to be 2 functional features for the same thing. Roads don't use highway=*_line for every marking either.
—— Kovposch (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

These things aren't the "same thing" IMO, and the fact that you suggest to use "road_marking", also suggest you in fact to some extent acknowledge they aren't either. I don't care much about the exact final tag. Maybe I need to change the proposal, but I don't think road_marking=* is a good alternative for aviation. It isn't a road after all, but a taxi- or runway. Maybe changing it to a dual tag aeroway=runway_marking / runway_marking=holding_position is a better proposal. The undocumented tag areoway=runway_marking has already been used, although just 12 times, but might be more suitable. What do you think about such a change of tag?--Mboeringa (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

But that doesn't include taxiways, and apron. Apparently they are used inside 1028891359 1028891359 UKMD Russia for runway threshold marking.
What's the ICAO term for them all? aerodrome_marking=* ?
—— Kovposch (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of aerodrome_marking=* isn't a bad one. If you look at some of the areodrome design manuals as e.g. available online from ICAO, they regularly reference "runway / taxiway centre line marking" and other types of "markings". So the general tagging could be aeroway=aerodrome_marking, aerodrome_marking=*, with the aeroway=aerodrome_marking main tag integrating it in the whole a aeroway=* tagging scheme, and the sub tag aerodrome_marking=* to refine and specify the actual marking type. So aeroway=aerodrome_marking and aerodrome_marking=holding_position for these holding position lines--Mboeringa (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kovposch I have finally found the time to update the proposal page to reflect the latest suggestion of the aeroway=aerodrome_marking and aerodrome_marking=holding_position tagging proposal for these aerodrome markings of holding positions.--Mboeringa (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)