Please mention here every possible improvements --Senior spielbergo 11:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC+01)
The naming type=* needs to be more describing, maybe aerobridge=A300 or aerobridge:type=A300. I'm not that familiar with aviation things, but is there really that many different types of aerobridges? And secondly, what additional value does it give to know what type the aerobridge is? --Kslotte 14:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There are not that many different types of aerobridges, but there are some differences. For example there are aerobridges with two / three heads (Airbus A380) and others which just have one head. The extra value is not that big, that is true. It was just an idea, because I'm an aviation enthusiast and for me and many others it might be interesting.
--Senior spielbergo 13:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC+01)
You still haven't written down what value it gives to know the type. Why should we map these? And how exactly do they differ? And how do we identify them? Couldn't for example a bridge CRJ700 be used on a Bombardier CRJ705? Isn't it airplains that you list instead of the actual types? Doesn't some places have generic types of airbridges that will fit for many planes? --Kslotte 08:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok I think my idea was not well-thought-out. I think you are right with that point, that it might be hard to get the information you need to tag it. It is true that these airbridges can be used for more than one type of aircraft, but there are types that can't be used for every type (because they are to high or something else). The extra value might just be interesting for aviation enthusiasts, so I think it is the best to just remove this type-tag idea from the proposal, because it is just a small group of people. Another point is, that you can't use that informationen for routing. Thanks for showing me these points. --Senior spielbergo 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC+01)
I deleted the type proposal. --Senior spielbergo 10:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC+01)
These aerobridge may be movable and not at a fixed position. This may be a problem, since it is hard to map things that change position. So, accepting a node only for the end being fixed may be needed. --Kslotte 14:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is precedent for this already, people are adding surveillance cameras and include the area they cover and if they move etc... Delta foxtrot2 12:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at it and I'm not very sure if it fits for the aerobridges. Sure they are moving, but it is very hard to say how many meters and which aere this movement covers. --Senior spielbergo 14:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC+01)
I think, that it is not a real problem, because these aerobridges are attached to the terminals and they just move in a certain range of several meters, or did misunderstand your comment?--Senior spielbergo 13:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC+01) edited 10:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC+01)
- I filled in some info into the definition on the page. Fine tune the text to what you feel fit better. --Kslotte 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Thanks! --Senior spielbergo 12:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC+01)
I don't know, if it is a good idea, because there is already a tag for gatenumbers (simple notes at the position of the gate), but on the other hand it might be a good idea to tag it, because it accentuates that the corresponding gatenumber has got an aerobridge. I think ref=* is an good idea, like in Tag:aeroway=gate. --Senior spielbergo 14:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC+01)
Link with bridge=covered?
Ways with highway=pedestrian/footway and bridge=covered are tags which can already be used to map the function of the aerobridge. aeroway=aerobridge advantages is to help define the type of bridge for a renderer, a search engine, a TTS instruction... I suggest that if this tag is approved it would be recommended to treat them by default as if it had a tag bridge=covered, unless this tag is filled with another value. --LeTopographeFou (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)