Talk:Proposed features/flight route

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Not verifiable

At least the route itself does not appear to be verifiable and therefore not suited for mapping in OSM. The routes taken by planes for a certain connection are highly variable.--Imagico (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think ferry routes also have the same properties as flight route if they travel on open sea. -Miklcct (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Flights between Tokyo and Los Angeles using the jet stream eastbound and a great circle route westbound.
Ferries go back an forth between two ports usually, and while their route might be not as narrow as on a road, their path is similar each time. Planes on the other hand, use different runways on the same airport depending on wind conditions, which means they fly sometimes north and sometimes south of a large city. They avoid thunderstorms by deviating hundreds of kilometers. Long-distance flights have different routes back and forth depending on the jetstream. --Polarbear w (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually I have set up a wiki account just to able to comment here... As someone who is deeply involved in flying people from "A" to "B" I can confirm Polarbears explanation that the actual routings for a given route can vary by several hundred nautical miles from day to day. That's is due to winds aloft and other weather phenomena. I do absolutely see no value in adding a routing for an aircraft. The only way a routing can be symbolically displayed is a great circle between "A" and "B", but that does not belong into OSM in my opinion. --Highflyer74 (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
If the actual flight path for a certain flight route is not fixed, we may omit the path itself from the route relation, and only include the stop positions and platforms. This is useful for public transport planner to include aeroplanes as a mode of public transport. -Miklcct (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no place in OSM for flight paths, approach patterns and the like. Please read: --Woodpeck (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Then we do not map the path itself, but the departure and landing terminal of a flight route is observable on the ground so we may map it. -Miklcct (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It is not maintainable so it will become very unreliable over time. --Polarbear w (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This argument can be applied to bus/metro/train/ferry/whatever route also --Miklcct (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thats not true. Flights don't start always from the same terminal or gate. its rare that busses change the position from where they start. What kind of advantage we have from flight routes in OSM? --Paulest (talk) 10:22, 01.12.2016 (MEZ)
I see no advantage at all. All you need is an external database with the flights, and the airport codes are in OSM, so a routing engine can use that. The advantage of the external solution is that the flight database can operate on a different copyright model than OSM, probably it could pull live data from travel portals. --Polarbear w (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No flight schedules

OSM is a geographical database. Flight schedules are not geographical features. Besides the routes as Imagico pointed out, also the schedules are highly volatile; they can change quickly without being noticed by the mapper who introduced them, thus they are unmaintainable in OSM. --Polarbear w (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Schedules do not belong to OSM, but the routes themselves are. There are a lot of bus, train, ferry, etc routes already. -Miklcct (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I did not mean the timetable, I meant the schedule that airline XYZ provides a connection between airport A to airport B.
This is not geodata and should not be in OSM. --Woodpeck (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Same opinion as above: I consider this unmaintainable as well. Aviation is an extremely volatile business, especially these days. --Highflyer74 (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)