Proposal talk:Taxilane

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The idea of having a way of specifying taxilanes sounds cool; however, perhaps it would be good to tag them differently than aeroway=taxilane.

Tagging them instead with aeroway=taxiway and taxiway=taxilane would make this backwards-compatible with taxilanes previously tagged as taxiways, by adding information without modifying the information there from beforehand. This also would make any software which only understands taxiways see that the lanes may be taxied on, while software which differentiates between them can do so. --Abbafei (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I can definitely see the advantage of using aeroway=taxiway and taxiway=taxilane or even taxiway=apron. It is more descriptive as well as being backwards compatable and would be a valid use of the common iterative refinement tagging scheme. I will second your idea. After all you still taxi on a taxilane. It is just a taxiway within a non-movement area. --Fairchildbrad (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Current status

This proposed tag is by now used nearly 4,000 times. Congratulations.

It looks like the lack of an approved proposal is going to hold up rendering in Carto though. Is this proposal ready to move forward?

One thing I've noticed in mapping a military airfield and looking at current use of aeroway=taxilane is that mappers are looking for something that sits between aeroway=parking_position and aeroway=taxiway in terms of hierarchy, but that limiting it to paths on the apron within the responsibility border may be too strict. Take this example:

Example of aeroway markings.png

Here you see a runway, a taxiway, and parking (holding?) positions on both sides of the responsibility border (you can faintly see the red line in front of the hanger).

I have highlighted the various bits as follows:


Might it perhaps be useful to define aeroway=taxilane as 'connecting taxi lanes' (all orange in the above) rather than just the taxi lanes within the area outside of air traffic control's responsibility? In particular, because aeroway=parking_position does not have this limitation. I can understand the desire to tag which side of the responsibility border they are on, but wonder if that shouldn't be done with a separate tag that can be used with aeroway=parking_position as well. --JeroenHoek (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Although I might simply be misinterpreting this situation, and should not use aeroway=parking_position outside of the responsibility border, using aeroway=holding_position instead. --JeroenHoek (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)