Talk:Proposed features/Aerodrome (unified symbol set)
In gereral they are good, as Batchoy's symbols usually are. I noticed the following things that I think need tweaking
- Class=major : The plane has sharp pointed wing tips. Could these be blunted and smoother? The area behind the main wings, on the main body of the plane appears quite fat. I think this should be thined, to appear more streamline.
- Class=other|Minor : Same as major
- Class=Airfiled|gliding : Looks good
- Class=gliding : Again this one looks cool
- Class=heliport: The helicopter needs shrinking in legth somewhat I think, as the front blades and the tail roter seem cut off, but othersize its good.
- Class=seaplane|floatplane : This is the only one I had a problem instatnly recognising what it ment. I think the final point may make it clear though.
I think all the planes need shrinking very sligtly so as to not merge with the outside ring. The spacing between the image inside the ring and the ring itself should be equal to the line thickness used for the outer ring (and other things). This would be graphically balanced I recon.
Finally, am I correct to asume that going down the list, the lower the symbol the lower the statuse. Therfore if a gliding center also allows small planes to land on the grass_airfield, it would just be tagged as a grass_airfield? Ben. 04:53 23 Decemeber 2006 (UTC)
- Unless existing usage is already widespread, I think "aerodrome_type=" would be more explicit and more in line with current tagging trend than "class=" --Vincent De Phily 12:00, 29 June 2011 (BST)
- ~/other/minor : must choose one. And why not "medium" ? --Vincent De Phily 12:00, 29 June 2011 (BST)
- I think "grass_airfield" should be just "airfield" with a "surface=grass", to match tagging conventions elsewhere. --Vincent De Phily 12:00, 29 June 2011 (BST)