From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Key aeroway not appropriate for spacecraft

As I have already stated elsewhere, the key aeroway=* is for aircraft related tags. Spacecraft are no aircraft, although there are some mixed forms like the space shuttle and the blackbird, the aeroway key is generally not suitable for spaceports. --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

For everyone else, this is the mentioned previous discussion :
I assume if someone's not fine with the current state, he/her should propose what should be used instead ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind using aeroway=* for spaceports. Chrabroš (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
for the record: I'm currently in favour of man_made=spaceport but have made a proposal to see what people think about tagging under aeroway. --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

'Spaceport' being mandatory

While Spaceport is a valid term it would not define all ranges with launchpads catering to suborbital research with small/large sounding rockets, orbital launch sites, military testing and missile launch sites. Some of these sites could have altitude limits on them. All these do not fit the bill of being 'spaceport'. All launch complexes are industrial areas that may be military or civilian in nature with man made structures(assembly building, launch/landing pads, launch tower/rails etc) So just like a runway doesn't make an airport, launch sites don't make Spaceports. There shouldn't be a mandatory dependency. Ohsin (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

the way I read it, according to the wiki aeroway=spaceport is mandatory for spaceports, but if a structure isn't a spaceport, but still e.g. a launch pad, we wouldn't add the spaceport tag to it(as the whole page wouldn't apply, see first section)--Dieterdreist (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It bothered me since aeroway=launchpad is redirecting to aeroway=spaceport almost implying they are same. But that could be fixed later I guess I am very new to OSM and OSM wiki. Ohsin (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint, possibly the description should include a link to industrial=* and military=* ? I'd compare the tagging to harbour=* (where you got a differentiation between marina/port/naval_base...). I think military=launchpad would make sense, while I'm not so sure whether we need industrial=launchpad at the moment (perhaps for future differentiation of those who only launch satellites, not suitable for human missions ?).
As I have no knowledge about military rocket launch infrastructure, I'd prefer if someone with such experience would amend those details to the military=* documentation. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Landuse sorts launch sites out with military and industrial(implying civilian research) and inner features get tagged as aeroway=launchpad or man_made=launch_pad (seeing both used in wild). Other common facilities that may be around are propellant preparation facilities or depots, block house, control center, MET towers, tracking stations etc. Ohsin (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I think for military missiles "missile silo" is a more common situation, launchpad would imply something in the open I guess.--Dieterdreist (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
There are several ways to launch rockets,
military does not necessarily mean explosive ones
Check those :
Rtfm Rtfm (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Definition of 'Spaceport'

As already mentioned above, there's no clear definition yet what makes an aeroway=spaceport.
As an example, the Mojave Air & Space Port[1] is an ordinary airport aeroway=aerodrome (according to the infrastructure of runways and hangars).
In the USA, the FAA 'certifies' airports (also with 'only' horizontal launch) as a 'spaceport', see Active Launch Site Operator Licenses [2].
IMHO the question is whether this needs to be tagged (now). And if it's possibly interesting in the future to know where you may start your satellite or your space tourism trip from (Also of those with horizontal launch, i.e. at the moment a rocket propelled spacecraft attached to an airplane [3]). To be able to tag several 'types' of airports, you would need something like aeroway:haulage=*;* for the mixed purpose aeroways (in case they use the same infrastructure, currently aeroway=runway). Suggestions ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


I that that it would be far better to establish some generic tag - and tag things like landingpad, launchpad as subkeys. For example aeroway=landingpad will for a long time have extremely low usage.Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

generic tag for what? There is few usage and will remain for some time because there aren’t many of them, indeed there are so few you probably think it’s not worth creating a dedicated rendering rule for it. But what does it mean “establish some generic tag”, which other things would you like to add to the “spaceport components category”? —Dieterdreist (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Ideally there would be spacecraft equivalent of term tarmac "The term is also often used to describe airport aprons (also referred to as "ramps"), taxiways, and runways regardless of the surface.". I admit that I have no idea whatever it exists and I had no time to check it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
What about something like "spacecraft=yes" and aerodrome=runway? There may be hybrid landing facilities supporting spacecraft and airplanes. --Chatelao (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


There seems to be a conflict about how many images to use (and how large they should be). I'm creating this section so that the parties involved can discuss the matter here. --Woodpeck (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a removal is a good action in general in case information gets lost. If someone feels it should be in another usual format (such as a gallery in this case, which is a wiki standard), that's o.k.. Or if some "general" or "background" info should be "restructured" (to another chapter of the page). Rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
In this case nothing useful in OSM Wiki was lost. OSM Wiki is not a place to create galleries, use (for example) Wikimedia Commons gallery pages to do this Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Confusing description

I don’t understand what this sentence is meant to say: “It can be associated with the area around the perimeter of the spaceport.” Why is it referring to the area around the perimeter, shouldn’t the tag be limited to describe the area within the perimeter? —Dieterdreist (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Deprecate aeroway=landingpad

There are only 4 features tagged with aeroway=landingpad, and these features seem to be just about identical to a launch pad. I recommend using aeroway=launchpad (or man_made=launch_pad, or military=launchpad) for both of these, since there will not be a verifiable difference between a launch or landing pad in most cases, right? --Jeisenbe (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You'll see that this is currently not the case :  Rocket_landing_pad rtfm Rtfm (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The link above says: "Rocket landing pad may refer to: Floating landing platform, a water-borne landing platform for a rocket - SpaceX landing zone, a type of facility for landing SpaceX rockets - ... [other SpaceX platforms]". Floating landing platforms are ships which don't stay in one place, so we don't map those. - I believe the currently mapped landing pads are on land such as these but in what way are they different than a launch pad? They look like just an area of concrete or other hard surface. The next article suggests that a former launch pad is now used as a landing pad: "SpaceX began a five-year lease of Launch Complex 4 West in February 2015 in order to use that area as a landing pad". This is one of the 4 currently tagged features. This is why I think it makes sense to use one tag for launch and landing pads. --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
"The site is the former Launch Complex 13, which has been demolished and replaced by two circular landing pads" - this is not a reuse of an existing structure for something else. Concrete won't do the job as it would melt. It is currently not possible to use the same structure to land as of the tower for the ship's provisioning just before the start. If the tower was movable (on rails), this could work (or if the rockets get that precise to land on exact the same point). So for the long-term, we would need a "3rd" value such as "rocketpad" (2-way-usage similar to helipad, but you may not use a helipad as of the temperatures).In case you feel this discussion should be continued (unless I don't see the need before a "rocketpad" will be reality), I'd propose to continue it on the aeroway=landingpad page. Rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

concrete areas on spaceports

Hi all, was already wondering about the number of near to 200 spaceports worldwide, this seems to be the reason : I assume those should be called aeroway=apron instead ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I looks like many of the features with the tag in that area are actually industrial areas, office buildings, or military areas related to manufacture or storage of missles: - though there are a few places with facilities for launching rockets, e.g: which seems somewhat appropriate for this tag. --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)