Proposal:Aerodrome Descriptive Tags
| Aerodrome Descriptive Tags | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Voting (under way) 
|
| Proposed by: | Telegram Sam |
| Tagging: | aerodrome=*
|
| Applies to: |  
|
| Definition: | Descriptive tags for aerodromes. |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2026-01-02 |
| RFC start: | 2026-04-28 |
| Vote start: | 2026-05-12 21:30:00 (UTC) |
| Vote end: | 2026-05-26 00:00:00 (UTC) |
Introduction
Problem Statement
There is currently no organized and widely established system for tagging aerodromes. Various natures of values are being stuffed into one or two tags. This proposal aims to fix this issue.
Proposal
An aerodrome can be described in terms of type with the following tag:
aerodrome=*
|
airport / airfield / ... |
How an aerodrome is used can be described using the following tag:
usage=*
|
military; general ; cargo ; scheduled ; charter ; ... |
Whether the public has access to an aerodrome is described by the following tag:
access=*
|
yes / private / ... |
The presence of sports being practiced at an aerodrome is described by the following tag:
sport=*
|
gliding ; parachuting ; ultralight_aviation ; ... |
Whether an aerodrome accepts international traffic is described by the following tag:
port_of_entry=*
|
yes / no |
There are special types of aerodromes which receive their own special tags:
aeroway=*
|
airstrip |
aeroway=*
|
heliport |
aeroway=*
|
seaplane_base |
Military aerodromes can be mapped by adding a military=* or usage=military tag to 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 describing aerodromes. In these tags, various natures of values are used like "international", "regional", "private" and "gliding" that mix different types of characteristics of aerodromes. All of these characteristics should instead have their own tags.
Main Tags
There are many categories of tags mixed in aerodrome=* and aerodrome:type=*, however most can be separated into the following 4 tags:
The usage=* tag can then be used to specify how an aerodrome is being used, that is, for commercial travel, for general leisure, etc.
Private aerodromes can be indicated using the access=* tag. In general no members of the public are allowed on the airside of an aerodrome so this tag describes access to its groundside by the public.
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.
Aerodrome Tag
After all values belonging to the previous 4 tags are removed from aerodrome=* and aerodrome:type=* we are left with tags like aerodrome:type=international, aerodrome:type=regional and aerodrome:type=airfield. They also happen to be among the most numerous.
What these tags have in common is that they describe how well developed the aerodrome is, akin to describing an urban settlement as a city or town. The aerodrome:type=international tag also denotes that the aerodrome takes international traffic, but this characteristic is better separated into its own tag, port_of_entry=*.
As such, I propose the fifth tag, aerodrome=*, to take these remaining values, becoming the type tag for aerodromes.
Since port_of_entry=* takes care of the international characteristic, aerodrome:type=international and aerodrome:type=regional can be fused into one tag, aerodrome=airport, which describes an aerodrome of larger development level.
The aerodrome=airfield tag can be kept largely as is, describing an aerodrome of smaller development level.
Special Aerodromes
There are special types of aerodromes which are different from a regular aerodrome. These get their own tags.
The first is an airstrip, currently using the aeroway=airstrip tag. These are very low development aerodromes, often consisting only of a flat grass field. They are very numerous around the globe and can be deployed quickly. Often only light aircraft or specialized aircraft can land on them.
The second is a heliport, currently using the aeroway=heliport tag. These are aerodromes on which only aircraft which can take-off vertically can land. They often include hangars and refueling equipment but their only landing surfaces are helipads.
The third is a seaplane base, which I propose to use a new aeroway=seaplane_base tag. These are rare aerodromes which are more similar to ports than airfields. Their only landing surfaces are on water basins and aircraft must dock near the coastline when taxiing. Only seaplanes can land on them.
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 + usage=military 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.
Tagging
Definitions
Main Tags
The aerodrome=* tag should be used to describe an aerodrome by type. I propose as a start the following, based on currently in-use tags:
| Tag | Description |
|---|---|
aerodrome=airport
|
Based on the current aerodrome:type=international and aerodrome:type=regional.
Refers to aerodromes with a larger ammount of traffic and/or infrastructure. |
aerodrome=airfield
|
Based on the current aerodrome:type=airfield.
Refers to aerodromes with a smaller ammount of traffic and/or infrastructure. |
The usage=* tag should be used to describe the type of activity present at an aerodrome. Multiple values can be present. As a start, I propose the following:
| Tag | Description |
|---|---|
usage=military
|
The aerodrome has substantial military traffic present. |
usage=general
|
The aerodrome has substantial general aviation traffic present. |
usage=cargo
|
The aerodrome has substantial cargo traffic present. |
usage=scheduled
|
The aerodrome has substantial commercial scheduled traffic present. |
usage=charter
|
The aerodrome has substantial commercial non-scheduled (charter) traffic present. |
To clarify, general aviation is all operations that aren't commercial transport (airlines) or military. In our case it includes airwork.
No member of the public may enter the airside of an aerodrome without special permission (e.g. a ticket). The following tags describe whether a member of the public may access the groundside of the aerodrome:
| 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. |
The presence of sports and which ones at an aerodrome is described using the following tags (multiple values are allowed):
Whether or not an aerodrome is international or not is described using the following tags:
| 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. |
Special Aerodromes
As described in the Rationale section, the following tags are available for tagging these special kind of aerodromes:
| Tag | Description |
|---|---|
aeroway=airstrip
|
Aerodromes with no or close to no infrastructure. |
aeroway=heliport
|
Aerodromes with only helipads. |
aeroway=seaplane_base
|
Aerodromes with only water runways. |
Examples
Commercial Focused
| Aerodrome (Bing Maps) | Tags |
|---|---|
| Cairo International Airport | aeroway=aerodrome
|
| Gold Coast Airport | aeroway=aerodrome
|
| Westray Airport | aeroway=aerodrome
|
General Focused
| Aerodrome (Bing Maps) | Tags |
|---|---|
| Phoenix Deer Valley Airport | aeroway=aerodrome
|
| Campo de Marte Airport | aeroway=aerodrome
|
| Gießen-Lützellinden Aerodrome | aeroway=aerodrome
|
Special Aerodromes
| Aerodrome (Bing Maps) | Tags |
|---|---|
| Tufi Airport | aeroway=airstrip
|
| Gunma Heliport | aeroway=heliport
|
| 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 unchanged.
Seaplane bases are currently tagged as aeroway=aerodrome so when changing to aeroway=seaplane_base this would cause them to disappear. To remedy this, tag them as landuse=industrial + industrial=port since they are also ports.
Features/Pages affected
Created
aerodrome=airport/airfield
usage=general;cargo;scheduled;charter
Modified
Deprecated
The following tags have all their functionality moved from them and become obsolete:
Previous Discussions
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 1 (2026/04/02)
- 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.
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.