Proposal talk:Runway holding position

WAT

"Inclusion of these markings will allow applications to warn the pilot prior to entering the runway safety area without permission from air traffic control. "

I am pretty sure that OSM is not suitable source of data for maps used by pilots. Can you give examples of countries where it is OK to use OSM map data for such purpose? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it would be unwise to use OSM data for flights today. At least, OSM data that hasn't been through a vetting process. But, it would nonetheless be legal on a Class III EFB in the United States (I believe ICAO's rules are similar). I should probably tone down the real world use argument. The primary advantage right now is for testing and developing these types of taxi systems in flight deck simulations. Tapestes (talk)

Um...

"mapping applications that provide turn-by-turn taxi directions to pilots"

If an airport is complicated enough to need turn-by-turn directions, it's going to have a control tower giving those directions. If you want a rationale for mapping these, try for one grounded in reality, such as "it lets flight simulator users add detailed airports from OSM data". --Carnildo (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

To the contrary, the more complicated the airport, the more desirable turn-by-turn directions will be. When the ground controller issues a taxi clearance, it is one long clearance from your current position to the gate or runway (you can ask for a progressive taxi clearance, but they're workload intensive for the controller and not often used by pilots). It's up to the pilot to successfully navigate from point A to point B along the course prescribed by the controller, typically using a paper map (Airport Diagram) and signage on the field. A common cause of runway incursions (a case in which a pilot enters a runway for which they do not have clearance), is the pilot missing a turn, or turning in the wrong direction. I would, however, agree that it's unlikely OSM data will ever be suitable for this sort of application in the real world. And, as you point out, it's much more likely to be used in simulation environments where this sort of concept can be evaluated (NASA has been looking at this since the early 90s). Tapestes (talk)

Simulation using OSM and using such data in display seems much more reasonable. And maybe also not to provide turn by turn navigation but to detect pilot going wrong way and to complain about it. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Existing Tag

Folks on the tagging mailing list have suggested modifying the existing aeroway=holding_position tag rather than creating a new feature. The plan would be to:

• Add optional subtags of holding_position=runway, holding_position=interim, holding_position=ils
• Modify the existing holding_position tag to allow for ways in addition to nodes

Those would fix my issues with the existing holding_position tag, and probably makes more sense than creating a new feature. I'll let the discussion go on here for a bit longer, but, barring some dissenting opinions, I'll take that route. As far as I know, all I need to do to make this happen is edit the existing page, but if there's an RFC process I should follow for modifying the holding_position tag, please let me know. Tapestes (talk)

There actually exists already a similar tag: holding_position:type with the values ILS/intermediate/runway. It just isn't documented. I'm not sure if the :type suffix is really necessary in this case, so maybe with under 1000 uses we could think about changing that. But that would probably need some discussion.--TOGA (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Folks on the tagging list suggested "=" rather than ":" to avoid creating issues for folks already using this holding_position data. But, if ":" is already in use, that might change things a bit. I've got a full write up for the holding_position tag page that would document this usage (haven't posted yet). I'll post this back to the list and see what other folks say. Unless they disagree, I'll, uh, go around on "=" and use ":" instead. Gracias. Tapestes (talk)

I think there's a little misunderstanding on your side, holding_position:type is just the key. The whole tag is holding_position:type=ILS/intermediate/runway.--TOGA (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

In general, proposal process is never necessary but it can be useful. So you may copy/edit this page to discuss new holding_position=runway/holding_position=ILS/holding_position=intermediate tag (and deprecation of holding_position:type=<nowiki/>*?) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)