From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

only for nodes?

Is there any reason why this tag should be used just for nodes instead the complete airport area? --Etric Celine 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be allowed for areas too. Especially because airports are usually large. The text seems to contradict the ValueDescription-Template in this aspect. --MRQ 18:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there are reasons as long as it's rendered from a high "zoom out level".
  • In mapnik it's rendered as a symbol at zoom level 10.
  • in tiles@home it's rendered as a symbol at zoom level 13
-- Logictheo 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Boundary Ways

I would like to tag an airport with an area, however, there are a number of different ways defining the perimeter in this case - some barrier=fence, some building=hangar, and some are ways of an administrative boundary too. It's therefore not possible to use the existing ways to form a closed node to share the aeroway=aerodrome property. The solution seems to be using a multipolygon relation to gather the boundary sections using role "outer" then apply the aeroway tags to the relation. For buildings that form part of the solid boundary I have created an additional barrier=wall way for their outer edges, as closed ways can't be included as part of multipolygons. --Pink Duck 11:39, 26th March 2010 (UTC)

I have been spending some time looking at how people are modeling airports and haven't been comfortable with how boundaries are defined either. Personally I prefer to use 'aeroway=aerodrome' as a node so that I can position it where I wish it to appear, probably near to, or on the main terminal building. The boundary seems to be a separate entity, indeed I think there are multiple boundaries, including 'airside', 'main airport facilities', 'airport include all related parking, transport interchanges and services etc. Sometimes a boundary can be a simple way, but other times it will indeed be better as a multi-polygon as you suggest. I have also been looking at how one might use a 'site' relation to pull all the elements of an airport into a single container. Possibly the boundary could form part of that over-arching relation. Can I suggest that we discuss this further on the talk:Airports page? PeterIto 22:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The type=* tag

The current documentation of the type=* conflicts with the actual tagging of multipolygons.

So instead of type=public, you should use aerodrome:type=public. Other documented values include aerodrome:type=military, aerodrome:type=private.

But may be we could use access=* ? — Verdy_p (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently there is a proposal to use the key aerodrome=*. --Jgpacker (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

aerodrome=* tag

There is a need for describing how important is the airport. It seems already some people have been following the idea of using the aerodrome=* tag: [1]. It should be documented. Pieleric (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Now there is a proposal for that: Proposed features/Aerodrome --Jgpacker (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent documentation

There is an inconsistency between the "How to map" section, allowing relations (edited on 23:24 14 dic 2011‎), and the ValueDescription template, allowing only nodes and areas. Muralito 10:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really because a multipolygon relation counts as a complex area, but I can see how it can be confusing. --Jgpacker (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)