Proposal:Aerodrome Classification
| Aerodrome Classification | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Draft (under way) |
| Proposed by: | Telegram Sam |
| Tagging: | aerodrome=*
|
| Applies to: |  
|
| Definition: | Classification of aerodromes. |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2026-01-02 |
| RFC start: | 2026-01-22 |
| Vote start: | 2026-04-02 18:30:00 (UTC) |
| Vote end: | 2026-04-16 23:59:59 (UTC) |
Introduction
Problem Statement
For a long time there has not been a clear and widely established system of categorizing aerodromes. One is necessary, so that international airports and small aerodromes can each be given proper emphasis in the database. This proposal aims to fix this issue.
Proposal
An aerodrome can by classified by its level of infrastructure:
aerodrome=*
|
airport / airfield / airstrip |
Then its usage can by specified:
usage=*
|
mixed / commercial / general |
A special tag for seaplane bases is used as is done with heliports:
aeroway=*
|
seaplane_base |
Extra tags can be used to add detail to the aerodrome:
access=*
|
yes / private / ... |
sport=*
|
gliding / parachuting / ultralight_aviation / ... |
port_of_entry=*
|
yes / no |
Military aerodromes can be mapped by adding a military=* tag to them or to an area within them.
Disused aerodromes can be mapped by adding a lifecycle prefix to them.
Rationale
Current System
Currently mappers seem to be using both the aerodrome=* and aerodrome:type=* tags for classifying aerodromes. In these tags, various natures of values are used like "international", "regional", "private" and "gliding" that mix different characteristics of aerodromes. All of these characteristics should instead have their own tags.
Previous Systems
Near the beginning of OSM aerodromes were divided into Airports, Aerodromes and Airfields. This system was lost after an incident, but it still is a natural and useful way to categorize aerodromes, that is, by size or prominence.
Previous proposals sometimes mixed in type of use in the main tag which is not ideal, since usage, like general vs. commercial or sports is usually mixed and other tags are better fit for this purpose.
Main Tags
The original system is largely good as a base, however new names should be used. The aeroway=aerodrome tag as a catch-all has become very prominent and changing it would cause large disturbances to data users. The term "aerodrome" is also legally a catch-all term for a place any aircraft can land on, despite being used informally to refer to smaller airfields.
I propose bringing back the 3-tag system using the terms "Airport", "Airfield" and "Airstrip" to describe the overall developmental size of an aerodrome. "Airport" is commonly used to refer to large aerodromes, "Airfield" is a synonym for smaller aerodromes and an "Airstrip" is generally accepted as being a low development aerodrome.
The usage=* tag can then be used to specify how an aerodrome is being used, that is, for commercial travel, for general leisure, or both.
Seaplane Bases
By definition of the ICAO, an aerodrome is anywhere an aircraft can land and take-off. In most cases, this is also the case with the aerodrome=* tag in OSM, irrespective of the types of aircraft that use the aerodrome.
However, precedent has been set by the aeroway=heliport tag, which describes an aerodrome in which only helicopters can land. This makes sense as even though airplanes and helicopters both can use mixed aerodromes, they are always dominated by airplanes since helicopters are an expensive, limited, niche mode of travel. This means that a heliport is very different from a regular aerodrome in terms of the facilities, training and equipment necessary to use it.
The same can be said of seaplanes. The era of seaplanes is long gone since land aerodromes became plentiful after WW2. Now they are limited forms of travel mostly used in undeveloped areas of the world. Seaplane bases also are very different from the average aerodrome requiring special equipment and training. Thus, like heliports, seaplane bases should have their own tag, aeroway=seaplane_base.
The alternatives would be using extra an seaplane=yes tag, which is still inventing new tags, or putting it in the main tag, which would make it less consistent. Both clash with the existence of the aeroway=heliport tag.
Extra Tags
Private aerodromes can be indicated using the access=* tag. Many times, a private aerodrome is still accessible to the public, even if in limited ways. The many values of the tag give many ways to describe these situations.
In case airsports are practiced at an aerodrome the sport=* tag is used. These can happen at a variety of aerodrome sizes and while other traffic is using the aerodrome.
Finally, whether an aerodrome can receive international traffic or not is described by the port_of_entry=* tag. This is normally a legal matter and should be available publicly. It can also be used by other objects like ports or border crossings.
Military and Disused
Current methods for mapping military or disused aerodromes are acceptable.
For purely military aerodromes, add a military=base or military=airfield tag to the aeroway=aerodrome. For joint aerodromes separate the two, giving the aeroway=aerodrome tag to the entire aerodrome and the military tag to the areas under control of the military.
In the case of disused aerodromes, add a disused:*=*, or abandoned:*=*, etc. to the aeroway=aerodrome tag.
Alternative Tags
In order to improve the transition between systems, aeroway=airstrip is not deprecated and is left as an alternative tag. In areas with a large number of airstrips, changing to aeroway=aerodrome could make them swarm the map if data users are slow to adopt, which is why until a later period they should be left as is.
The tag military=airfield is also left as an alternative tag to military=base.
Tagging
Definitions
Main Tags
The following descriptions are guidelines based on airport statistics compiled on my page and visual analysis of some of the airports.
Mappers are free to use them as they best see fit.
| Tag | Description |
|---|---|
aerodrome=airport
|
Aerodromes with large to medium built-up infrastructure
|
aerodrome=airfield
|
Aerodromes with medium to small built-up infrastructure
|
aerodrome=airstrip
|
Aerodromes with minimal built-up infrastructure
|
| Tag | Description |
|---|---|
usage=mixed
|
The aerodrome has a mix of commercial and general aviation present. |
usage=commercial
|
The aerodrome mainly focuses on commercial aviation. |
usage=general
|
The aerodrome mainly focuses on general aviation. |
Seaplane Bases
| Tag | Description |
|---|---|
aeroway=seaplane_base
|
Aerodromes with only water runways. |
Extra Tags
| Tag | Description |
|---|---|
access=yes
|
Aerodrome owner allows members of the general public to use the aerodrome. Fees and scheduling may apply.
By default, all aerodromes are assumed to be public. |
access=private
|
Aerodrome owner does not allow members of the general public to use the aerodrome. |
| Tag | Description |
|---|---|
port_of_entry=no
|
International traffic cannot legally land at this aerodrome.
By the default, all aerodromes are assumed to not be ports of entry. |
port_of_entry=yes
|
International traffic can legally land at this aerodrome. |
Examples
Commercial Focused
General Focused
Seaplane
| Aerodrome (Bing Maps) | Tags |
|---|---|
| Kenmore Air Harbor | aeroway=seaplane_base
|
Private
| Aerodrome (Bing Maps) | Tags |
|---|---|
| Figueira dos Cavaleiros Aerodrome | aeroway=aerodrome
|
Military
| Aerodrome (Bing Maps) | Tags |
|---|---|
| RMAF Butterworth Air Base | aeroway=aerodrome
|
| Lajes Air Base | For the aerodrome:
For the military zone: |
Disused
| Aerodrome (Bing Maps) | Tags |
|---|---|
| Montargil Aerodrome | disused:aeroway=aerodrome
|
Impacts of Proposal
On Data Consumers
Impact should be minimal as the base aeroway=aerodrome tag is not changed and aeroway=airstrip is left as an alternative tag.
Features/Pages affected
Created
aerodrome=airport/airfield/airstrip
usage=mixed/commercial/general
Deprecated
The following tags have all their functionality moved from them and become obsolete:
aerodrome:type=* and its values
Current values of aerodrome=*
Previous Discussions
Wiki
Talk:Aeroways#Airport_Classification
Proposals
Forum
Mailing List
Aeroway=Aerodrome Modifier Tags?
Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page or the forum post.
Voting
- Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
- Scroll back down and click "Edit source" next to the title "Voting". Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
| To get this output | you type | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~
|
Feel free to also explain why you support the proposal! |
|
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~
|
Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no. |
|
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~
|
If you don't want to vote yes or no but do have something to say. Replace comments with your comments. |
~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.For more types of votes you can cast, see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
I approve this proposal. I agree with Morlark: Let us not let perfect be the enemy of good! --Zimtschnecke (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Distinguishing between major, international airports and small, private runways would be extremely useful for data consumers. --Flap Slimy Outward (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Lean yes. I have some minor concerns over usage=mixed -- existing usage is only on ways, not areas. Maybe change to a prefix tag. Otherwise seems to be well reasoned. Collapsing the classification into just 3 levels is probably for the best -- more detail can be added later if ever but I doubt a solid enough classification will ever get made. --Campbelltree (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- I chose to use the usage=* tag in order to reuse currently existing tags. Do you think another tag more commonly associated with areas or services should be used? --Telegram Sam (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I much (very much) prefer this re-worked proposal focusing more on physical characteristics of an aerodrome, and feel this leads to the introduction of more tags in the future (e.g. automated traffic, amount of gates). I feel this also helps bridge a gap with data, as my local aerodrome is very much a general aviation "airfield", but has 4 runways. --O0235 (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Strongly oppose widening the definition of aeroway=aerodrometo includeairstrips, as discussed extensively on the talk page. The proposal barely mentions this major change and its risk. We shouldn't be changing the defintion ofaeroway=aerodromeafter 20 years, many data consumers will never update their code. This will cause farm fields to be rendered with the same prominence as an airport, on every OSM based map. --Kylenz 10:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)- I approve this proposal.I'm surprised this wasnt a thing already.
- Hello again. Following your advice, aerodrome=airstrip isn't deprecated in the proposal and becomes an alternative tag. Users have the option to move them to aerodrome=airstrip or not. In Portugal, for example, most airstrips were already tagged as aeroway=aerodrome so impact is minimal, but in Australia for example airstrips can stay as aeroway=airstrip. --Telegram Sam (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think that would be even worse, having both
aeroway=airstripandaerodrome=airstripexisting in parallel would be really confusing; especially since you're proposing that the two tags would have different definitions, despite sounding extremely similar. I suggest excludingaeroway=airstripfrom your proposal, since it's distinctly different from anaerodrome. --Kylenz 10:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think that would be even worse, having both
- Hello again. Following your advice, aerodrome=airstrip isn't deprecated in the proposal and becomes an alternative tag. Users have the option to move them to aerodrome=airstrip or not. In Portugal, for example, most airstrips were already tagged as aeroway=aerodrome so impact is minimal, but in Australia for example airstrips can stay as aeroway=airstrip. --Telegram Sam (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- I see, I thought that would solve your concerns. In a revision I will separate the two. --Telegram Sam (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. While the proposal as written now is better than it started out, it's still way too subjective. What is an "important" thing to one data consumer is less important to another - they are each free to use the other tags associated with the object. Also, statements like "And yes, all current uses of aerodrome=* and aerodrome:type=* become obsolete." at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/voting-feature-proposal-aerodrome-classification/142801/3 betrays at best a "lack of seriousness"? --SomeoneElse (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's the thing: There are no other tags that describe an aerodrome. No tags describing how big it is, how it's used, who uses it. This proposal adds those tags so that data consumers may use them for their own purposes. I also don't think they're subjective at all. In fact, their guidelines are very specific.
- Additionally, can you elaborate on how my statement transmits a lack of seriousness? Under the proposal the aerodrome=* tag is given a very specific meaning and all other uses are transfered from it. I am not wrong in saying that all current uses become obsolete under it. --Telegram Sam (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- Saying "all current uses become obsolete under it" without thinking through the implications implies to me that you are not serious. SomeoneElse (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is strange that you think I said it without thinking. Let's go over the top values for aerodrome=* and aerodrome:type=* and see what happens to them.
- "public" becomes access=yes, "airfield" needs to be retagged as it follows a different definition, "regional" needs to be retagged as it isn't one of the valid values for size, probably as "airfield", "international" becomes port_of_entry=yes, "private" becomes access=private, "military/public" refers to a joint aerodrome which means the military area is drawn separately, "gliding" becomes airsport=gliding, "military" becomes military=base, "international;public" becomes access=yes and port_of_entry=yes, "seaplane" becomes aeroway=seaplane_base, "airstrip" likely needs to be retagged but could stay the same, "airsport" becomes sport=*, "mountain_airfield" becomes altitude=*, "aerodrome_marking" I don't know what they refer to, "domestic" becomes port_of_entry=no, "civil" means it's not military so lacks military tags.
- Where is the lapse in my judgement? Why should values which have no relation to a new tag definition be seen as still valid? --Telegram Sam (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- Tags do not "become" some other tag. You need to work with the OSM ecosystem to persuade people of the need for a change, and work with them to implement that change. SomeoneElse (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- There's no need to be overly focused on my choice of words. Nowhere do I say that tags should be converted in mass. I am simply trying to introduce a formal standard where none exists, which is exactly working with the OSM community. --Telegram Sam (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I think the definitions for aerodrome= are too arbitrary, and overlap with each other. I don't think airfield needs to exist, a division between an airport and airstrip is enough. I don't think seaplane bases should be moved to a separate aeroway= tag, but should instead be a subtype of aerodrome= e.g. aerodrome=water_aerodrome. Proposing moving to aerodrome=airstrip instead of aeroway=airstrip but also allowing aeroway=airstrip as an 'alternative' tag is confusing, unnecessary and is not a proper solution. --LordGarySugar (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree, it is very useful to distinguish small local aerodromes from large airports. Can you also specify how the criteria are arbitrary and intersect? Level of infrastructure is a very good determinant of the size of an aerodrome and so is the size of aircraft that use it.
- As for seaplane bases, why should they be treated differently than heliports? Isn't that inconsistent?
- Finally, what solution would you give to airstrips? I have an opposing vote here that says transfering them risks them swarming the map in places where they're dense. You can't make separate aeroway=* tags either because then data consumers lose the large airports in the transition, which is worse. I found this was the optimal strategy, letting both tags coexist until the new one is more established. --Telegram Sam (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it is useful to distinguish between small and large airports. But the definitions you have for airport is generally large to medium, and the definition for airfield is medium to small. If a given aerodrome has medium sized terminal and infrastructure, which category should it fall under?
- Seaplane bases are currently tagged as aeroway=aerodrome, so changing this tag would be very disruptive to data consumers and renderers. No consideration is given to the impact of making this change.
- As for the aeroway=airstrip problem, it is not possible for both the current and your proposed tagging schema to coexist as you claim. aeroway=aerodrome and aeroway=airstrip are mutually exclusive tags, you cannot have a gradual transition between two tags that use the same key. --LordGarySugar (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- The guideline definitions intersect on purpose. There's no fixed size limits for terminal buildings or industrial area or even plane type as trying to separate these into arbitrary categories would be fool's errand. Like many things in OSM, you have to analyse the aerodrome and make an educated decision on which category it fits best. Notice that words such as "large", "medium" and "small" can have different meanings to different people.
- As for seaplane bases, it's true that I forgot to include their disruption. This is because they are a very small minority of total aerodromes, making their disruption very small. Heliports are of higher number and the approved aeroway=heliport tag is largely being unused too.
- Both airstrips tags need not coexist. The transition would come from data consumers who would adopt higher zoom renderings (or none) for airstrips. Until such a time, mappers can leave airstrips tagged as they are currently in their region, be it as aeroway=aerodrome or aeroway=airstrip. --Telegram Sam (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. There are too many edge cases to stick everything into tight classifications --Fizzie41 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I thought we had gone through various edge cases and solved all of them? Can you give examples of edge cases that don't fit? --Telegram Sam (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. There are several components to this proposal, some of which I support and others which I oppose.
- I oppose expanding the definition of
aeroway=aerodrometo include airstrips, and I disagree with your assertion on the talk page that "Aerodromes and airstrips are not fundamentally different." I believe there's a clear distinction between the two, and I think that changing the established tagging (by making airfields a subtype of aerodromes) would hurt data consumers for little benefit. - I support the use of
usage=commercial/generalfor describing the use of an aerodrome, airfield, heliport, etc. I think this might be extended with additional values in the future, e.g. for facilities that are used for emergency medical services (like the heliport at a hospital) or for aircraft service and repair. - I support the use of
sport=*to describe the kinds of leisure aviation activities that an airport offers or allows. - I support the creation of a new tag for seaplane bases.
- I agree with the overall problem statement; it's currently hard for data consumers to determine the purpose and importance of an airport, which leads to undesirable renderings in maps (among other problems). I think that if mappers agree with and start to use
usage=*to describe the purpose/function of an airport, this will be a good first step, and paves the way for a future proposal about classifying an airport's importance. — Jake Low (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- I oppose expanding the definition of
- If airstrips are fundamentally different from airfields, are airports fundamentally different from airfields too? It could have been done that way, by giving each class their own aeroway=* tag. This however would lead to large airports not showing up on data consumer's databases during transition. By making everything a subtype of aeroway=aerodrome every aerodrome currently in OSM would continue to show up for data consumers, making the transition much easier. --Telegram Sam (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Let us not let perfect be the enemy of good. This proposal enforces the very important distinction between usage and significance, which current tagging otherwise mixes in a single tag. That some people consider the proposal to have some flaws should not stand in the way of adopting this distinction in tagging going forwards. It's unarguably better than what we currently have, and a vote against the proposal is implicitly a vote in favour of the current bad tagging, not a vote in favour of some hypothetical future perfect proposal (which will never come, because everyone has different ideas of what 'perfect' looks like). --Morlark (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.I approve the proposal, this is an improvement compared to what the current system is.
- I oppose this proposal. The proposed aerodrome=airport/airfield/airstrip are defined in the proposal as essentially large/medium/small aerodromes, without enough consideration to what qualifies as small, medium and large. Three different variables aro conflated, terminals, hangars and infrastructure, and aircraft size without consideration to aerodrams with terminals but only used by light aircraft and vice versa. The definition of usage=commercial and usage=general provides no guidance on what is commercial and what is general. Are you talking about passenger services? What about aerodromes that have private charter passenger services only? Are access=* meant to be for aeroplanes to land/take off? I'm not sure it's that simple. --Aharvey (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's true, the main 3 variables are basically just large, medium and small. However, notice how people have given real meaning to these sizes by giving each a specific word to refer to them: Airports, airfields and airstrips. These sizes are so important that different words were created for them. It's just like how we have different words for settlements based on size: Cities, town, villages, hamlets and so on.
- Airports are like cities, airfields are like towns and airstrips are like villages.
- As for the three variables, they are guidelines. Like everything in real life, nothing is black and white. You have to make an educated analysis of which category it fits best. Is it a city or a town? Is it an airport or an airfield?
- As for usage, I admit I assumed a bit of aviation knowledge on the part of the reader. Commercial refers to commercial passenger transport, that is, transport of people made for revenue. Private charters are included. General refers to private flying and airwork.
- Finally, access is indeed for pilots. No one is allowed in the airside of an aerodrome, and chances are if it is private, they won't let you in the groundside either. --Telegram Sam (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was rejected with 10 votes for, 5 votes against and 2 abstentions.