only for nodes?
Is there any reason why this tag should be used just for nodes instead the complete airport area? --Etric Celine 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion it should be allowed for areas too. Especially because airports are usually large. The text seems to contradict the ValueDescription-Template in this aspect. --MRQ 18:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think there are reasons as long as it's rendered from a high "zoom out level".
- In mapnik it's rendered as a symbol at zoom level 10.
- in tiles@home it's rendered as a symbol at zoom level 13
- -- Logictheo 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- re-opening this very old discussion: I regularly see aerodromes getting mapped as both a way and a node. I find this very dangerous because both entries can carry the same info (icao code, iata, operator, contact, ...) then when the info changes one may get updated, the other not. So we should avoid this double mapping and the best way seems to introduce a rule that aeroway=aerodrome (and heliport, and perhaps more others) should only be assigned to nodes - or only to ways. I don't much care which of the two, but a French mapper recently told me the total surface may be relevant to hikers, cyclists and others; there fore a "way" should be preferred over a node. Opinions? Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to tag an airport with an area, however, there are a number of different ways defining the perimeter in this case - some barrier=fence, some building=hangar, and some are ways of an administrative boundary too. It's therefore not possible to use the existing ways to form a closed node to share the aeroway=aerodrome property. The solution seems to be using a multipolygon relation to gather the boundary sections using role "outer" then apply the aeroway tags to the relation. For buildings that form part of the solid boundary I have created an additional barrier=wall way for their outer edges, as closed ways can't be included as part of multipolygons. --Pink Duck 11:39, 26th March 2010 (UTC)
- I have been spending some time looking at how people are modeling airports and haven't been comfortable with how boundaries are defined either. Personally I prefer to use 'aeroway=aerodrome' as a node so that I can position it where I wish it to appear, probably near to, or on the main terminal building. The boundary seems to be a separate entity, indeed I think there are multiple boundaries, including 'airside', 'main airport facilities', 'airport include all related parking, transport interchanges and services etc. Sometimes a boundary can be a simple way, but other times it will indeed be better as a multi-polygon as you suggest. I have also been looking at how one might use a 'site' relation to pull all the elements of an airport into a single container. Possibly the boundary could form part of that over-arching relation. Can I suggest that we discuss this further on the talk:Airports page? PeterIto 22:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The type=* tag
The current documentation of the type=* conflicts with the actual tagging of multipolygons.
- Currently there is a proposal to use the key aerodrome=*. --Jgpacker (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Type does not describe what is being tagged! Use a word that describes what you want to tag e.g. aerodrome:use=international/domestic/military aerodrome:prominence=large/medium/small Warin61 (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a need for describing how important is the airport. It seems already some people have been following the idea of using the aerodrome=* tag: . It should be documented. Pieleric (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now there is a proposal for that: Proposed features/Aerodrome --Jgpacker (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency between the "How to map" section, allowing relations (edited on 23:24 14 dic 2011), and the ValueDescription template, allowing only nodes and areas. Muralito 10:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not really because a multipolygon relation counts as a complex area, but I can see how it can be confusing. --Jgpacker (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
What distinguishes an Aerodrome from other types of aeroways?
This article should clearly define an aerodrome explain what distinguishes an aerodrome from other types of aeroways. My English dictionary says:
- a small airport.
- a landing and take-off area for civil aircraft, with facilities for aircraft maintenance and passenger arrival and departure.
However, my civil aviation authority considers all airports to be aerodromes and provides a list of aerodrome co-ordinates for around 200 places, including both civilian and military airports, aeroclub/glider airfields and heliports at hospitals and a few other places. All these places have an ICAO 4 letter airport location code. A few of these aerodromes are certificated to Part 139 of the CAA rules. All of these certificated aerodromes are international or domestic airports that airlines fly passenger aircraft to.
The above-mentioned list of aerodromes does not include disused military or civilian airfields, nor does it contain any of about 3500 airstrips dotted around New Zealand that are basically farm paddocks where light agricultural and similar aircraft can land and take off from. Because of this, the aeroway=aerodrome tag should explain what distinguishes an aerodrome from any other airfield or airstrip, and perhaps mention what aeroway=* tag should be used. - Huttite (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
How to map an Aerodrome licensed as a spaceport ?
For aeroway=spaceport there's a tag.
However, there are Aerodromes licensed as a spaceport, see
Active Launch Site Operator Licenses 
which don't have "special" spaceport infrastructure such as an aeroway=launchpad
An example currently in the media is Stratolaunch 
In this example, the Mojave Air and Space Port  is affected.
As there's (IMHO) no part of the Aerodrome dedicated to space launch, how would you tag this ?
aeroway:spaceport=yes ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
When creating an aerodrome as a node, the tag "local_ref" is suggested by potlatch. I have taken this for an indication that it is meant to be a typical tag for aerodromes, even if Potlatch does not behave so when creating an aerodrome as a way. I have used the "local_ref" tag especially in France, where pseudo-icao codes of the form LFddxy are maintained by the FFPLUM and can be consulted and downloaded from their website; the dd standing for the "département" and the xy being a free counter. To a lesser extent I have used the same tag in Italy, for the codes from www.ulm.it, and in Czechia and Slovakia, for those used by aerbaze.cz Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Closed / disappeared aerodromes
Time and again I am annoyed by people who (with the best of motivation, I do not doubt) remove aerodromes because they are no longer active. A recent example is EPLE Legnica. I suppose th aerodrome is no longer active; but someone removed its mention as an aerodrome, while leaving the runway and taxiways mapped. I think this is confusing and inconsequent. But how to do it properly?
- leave aeroway=aerodrome but add a closed=yes tag ; this is my preference but has been rudely disregarded
- change aeroway=aerodrome into disused:aeroway=aerodrome or some such?
- other suggestions?