Proposal:Include spacecraft in aeroway
(Redirected from Proposed features/include spacecraft in aeroway)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| include spacecraft related infrastructure in aeroway | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | dieterdreist |
| Tagging: | aeroway=* |
| Applies to: | |
| Definition: | Extend the definition of key:aeroway to include spacecraft related infrastructure |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | |
| Proposed on: | 2017-05-02 |
| RFC start: | 2017-05-02 |
| Vote start: | 2017-05-16 |
| Vote end: | 2017-05-30 |
Description
The current definition for key aeroway=* says it deals with the "physical infrastructure used to support aircraft and air travel". This proposals tries to estimate the support for a modification to make this the "physical infrastructure used to support aircraft, air travel, spacecraft and space flight".
Rationale
Following the recent introduction of aeroway=spaceport, aeroway=landingpad, aeroway=launchpad and the extension of aeroway=runway in the wiki and a handful of OSM objects it became apparent that there is a contradiction of these tags with the current definition of the aeroway key. There are not many spacecraft related features on a global level (currently, although this might change if control centres for space flight and satellite infrastructure etc. are mapped in a more structured way). Introducing a new key like "spaceway" might be seen as unproportionate compared to the number of actual features. It might be argued that other well established keys could be used to accomodate these features, e.g. amenity=* or man_made=*, allowing to add spacecraft related tags to aircraft related infrastructure without resorting to multi-value tagging. This proposal will formalize the amendment of the aeroway key if accepted.
References
Voting
Voting has ended. Total 20 votes cast. Yes: 15 (75%), No: 3 (15%), Abstain: 2 (10%)
I approve this proposal. I love to add details layers to the map, so a big yes! --Ashtez
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I prefer to not widen the definition of aeroway but keep the key aeroway restricted to "physical infrastructure used to support aircraft and air travel" and go with man_made=spaceport for spaceports or possibly with a new key like spaceway- although there aren't many related objects at this time, there will probably be in the future, and by its characteristics it is a distinctive and specific field. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. This makes much more sense to me than adding a new tag. --Skquinn (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Very related features. No need to add another tag. --Zuse (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- where do you see the common properties? Today's rockets are IMHO not very related to aircraft, they are rather very different: assembled at the launch site they will be launched once and not land anywhere, or even if they come back (space-x) it will be just a small part actually returning, and landing is not comparable to an aircraft. Aircraft are flying by gaining support from the air, while rockets are built to have as few resistance from the air as possible, and are flying out of the air in the shortest way (usually). The term "aeroway" has the word "air" explicitly in it, so it is from the terminology point of view completely ill formed to add rockets (or their related infrastructure) here.--Dieterdreist (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- You discuss vehicle technology, which is not relevant here. The ground features for both air flight and spaceflight (and other use) are related features with common properties, which are easily subsumed under the existing tagging scheme, including hybrid or fuzzy categories such as VTOL infrastructure, missile infrastructure, or reusable spacecraft infrastructure. --AtonX (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Javbw (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I have to abstain as I created the documentation (as of existing tagging). I would certainly vote "yes". There's one thing left, that's the military use of launchpads, but I think this should be handled within the military=* tag rtfm Rtfm (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- you don't have to abstain from voting, as you write you want to vote yes, you should do so (IMHO).--Dieterdreist (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Chrabroš (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Atalanttore (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. In one, er two, words, duck tagging. As pointed out above, spacecraft and spacecraft infrastructure is very different from aircraft infrastructure--with its own key it will be easier to come up with appropriate tags. I don't see why it's a big deal to add a new key, especially when there are relatively few spacecraft-related features already tagged. --Neuhausr (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --Hufgardm (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Spacecraft are almost planes, in which they travel through the atmosphere if you take the old american models where as other crafts from other countries look nothing like planes. What's the issue in creating a new key? it's not like it takes less space to tag under areoway. What happens if a runway is both a airplane and a space ship runway? You will be unable to tag both. --James2432 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Aircraft fly, so do rockets. I prefer to have all similar things collected under the one key, aeroway in this case. Here the features tagged will be on the ground, they may support both aircraft (fixed wing, rotary wing, vertical take off or landing) or space craft (vertical take off/landing or otherwise). Infrastructure for rotary vs fixed wing aircraft is different .. yet both come under the key aeroway. See no reason not to keep spacecraft here too. --Warin61 (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Why not, the tagging is intuitive. --Zverik (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. No qualms from me. Pizzaiolo (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --TheDutchMan13 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- As per @Skquinn Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I don't care a lot about this issue. However, I have read the mailing list thread and various wiki discussions and didn't see a single reason given why a separate key would cause problems. So in the absence of a convincing rationale, I'm voting based on my intuition: Spacecraft aren't aircraft, and keys aren't a scarce resource. --Tordanik 14:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. With advances in the used technology I expect aircraft and spacecraft to become more similar and horizontaly launched spacecraft and aircraft will eventually use the same infrastructure anyway. -- TZorn (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. with reservation against landingpad and launchpad which could create problems with bidirectional pads. I propose to amend to aeroway=flightpad with launch=yes and/or landing=yes. A similar tag aeroway=rocketpad was proposed, but it describes a specific vehicle propulsion technology (rocket). The tag flightpad is more generic for any VTO/L infrastructure (e.g. dedicated balloon launch pads). -AtonX (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)