Turns out if there was a page on airports, no one can find it. So I took some stuff from this discussion back in the day and wrote up a draft page, incorporating some new features that were not around back in 2014. It is interesting how many different ways airports are mapped and named in this country, from the area (or lack thereof) to the terminals and other places within. Anyhow, thought it would be good to have a standard method, and this is my attempt, with input from others, to define that. Note that this is a page on places, not roads or runways. All comments are welcome!
Great looking page. I made a few direct changes.
I was just thinking it might be good to add one more section at the end. (I have not yet added it.)
== Roads and Runways ==
These elements are outside the scope of the area place definition. See the article covering [[road types]] and [[Road_types#Runway.2FTaxiway|runway]]s for more information on those topics.Thanks Kent. I like that section and will add it next time I get a chance. I think I should also add a caveat that this applies to civilian airports only since military airfields are covered under the military bases article. I put in an additional alt name case for airports managed by an FBO. I think that’s common with small general aviation airports; figured since the FBO is basically the terminal it should be combined with the airport place, but idk. I will also give more alt name examples
Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk
Very good.
I would change the alternate names initial text to “To aid users in searching, add the following as alternate names:”
Further, I would add a bullet point to the beginning of that list, “The IATA code, if present.” While it is present in the primary name already, having it first (or alone) in an alt name can help Instant results, in my experience.
Further, I would broaden the last bullet point in the same section, not limiting it only to recent renames, because many locals/old-timers may still call it by an older name even if it was changed over a decade ago. For example, for “Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY)”, I have added “New Orleans International Airport”, which was its name until 2001, and “Moisant Field”, its original name from the 1940s.
Regarding car rental facilities, I would suggest a couple things. First, either changing the name or adding an alt name for “[code] Rental Car Return” – in my experience, this is usually how it’s signed, and it’s what I search for. Also, the text is good, but the “on-premises” and “off-premises” labels are a bit confusing. If there is an airport-owned single facility that is physically separate from the airport grounds, it should still be handled like a unified facility onsite (I think Vegas is like this). If there are separate spots for each rental company that are still on airport grounds, they should get their own Places (e.g., Detroit). One thing I’d add: even where there are separate rental car buildings, sometimes they are all on the same street or in the same general area, and a general “[code] Rental Car Return” Place can be helpful in those cases (e.g., Detroit, where each company has a separate building and lot, but all are on the same street).
As this is a draft, I will make the changes in the page.
Finally some guidance on Airport. Thanks a bunch. I think this needs to get posted as soon as agreed upon.
I didn’t notice anything I would change/add other than what was already mentioned.
At first I disagreed…but then I recognized my original suggestion to have these section names was based on whether the facility was inside or outside the airport grounds. I now recognize that is irrelevant and it is based on whether they (rental car facilities) are combined or separate.
+1
Good catch, Marc.
I support all of Marc’s changes.
I agree that this is long overdue. Great job overall, and I appreciate you mentioning military facilities being handled separately!
Thanks for putting this together
Ted
I added the caveat about military airfields and more alt name examples.
Thanks, it is good to have something on this.
It would be good for this page to resolve a conflict I’ve noticed over the years. Some folks like for the airport Area Place to “look” like an airport. The most extreme example of this is when an editor lovingly traces the tarmac outline, including runways, taxiways, and terminal areas. Some of this detail is lost in app rendering, but not all. Two downsides are (a) this doesn’t match our conventions for other Area Places and (b) a “form fitting” Area Place may end up smaller, and if it ends up smaller it will render with less significance on the app.
Other folks think the AP should reflect airport property, sometimes as expressed as “mapping to the fence line”. One possible downside is the inclusion of airport tenant businesses that commonly --but not always – involve aviation. Mapping to the “fence line” includes these areas because they are technically on airport property. A related downside is that large amounts of open and/or unimproved space that are technically under airport authority will be mapped as part of the airport.
Either approach can involve a terrific amount of work. Twice I have had all my work on an airport boundary deleted (using the “fence line” principle) – one of which had been locked at 6! – so I have lost interest in mapping airports. But it would be nice to settle the question of fence-line versus “airport-like” subset.
Personally, I favor the “fence line” principle because it is simple and I think the upsides outweigh the downsides. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise, but it could be a lot harder to craft guidance for “airport-like” Area Places.
Yes, I agree that the question of boundary needs to be resolved, and I concur that mapping to the fenceline is best. I’m not sure how including airport tenant businesses in the airport area is a downside.
That’s what’s on the page now. Are you suggesting it be expanded to something like this?
I’m with you, but somebody sure thought it was a downside at one of the major airports I set up. Wiped out all the detail boundary that I’d mapped from official sources and replaced it with a rough seat-of-the-pants outline that more or less looked like the runways.
How about something like this?
[EDIT: Added parking lots for good measure.]
Is it possible that airport wipe-out might have been form a galaxy far, far away, and might not be a factor anymore?
from
This sounds pretty good to me
Good here.
OK, I’ve made the changes to the area-extent paragraph in the Kartographer draft article. Thanks to Kartographer for the great work and to everybody for their comments.
I don’t know. The name associated with the airport after the horrible loss of data was that of an R6 Global Champ who is still active but, in my experience anyway, uncommunicative.
I hasten to add that, of course, it may not have been the GC who erased the outline work; the GC may in fact have tried to rescue the airport in haste after some R4+ editor really messed it up (at least I think it had been locked at 4).
Regardless, I have encountered work by other editors that suggests they like “airport-looking” Area Places instead of mapping property boundaries, so I do believe this is a useful clarification.
(The other two airport wipe-outs in my experience – both San Francisco and San Jose International Airports – appeared to have resulted from visiting R6 editors “rubber-stamping” Place Update Requests and unintentionally approving “trojan horse” deletion requests. No wiki article in the world will keep that from happening.)
This sounds like a difference in opinions among RCs and GCs. How can we ensure that this is adequately vetted and discussed so that changes are made then undone? How about taking an R6 vote along with an agreement on consensus?
We can’t. The best we can do is follow the process like we’re doing, then hope. Ultimately, we have no central authority that can compel anything.
On the bright side, it has been quite rare in my experience that a highly-decorated editor will come in out of the blue, “keyboard blazing”, and unilaterally undo agreed-upon wiki changes with zero discussion or notification. Oh it has happened, for sure. But it’s rare.
Much more likely is that leading regional editors will, when they find out about a wiki provision with which they disagree, simply institute a regional departure from the wiki. This is a completely natural human response; the conflict between regional and central authority goes back 5000 years or more.
Finding the right balance between regional and central authority within the national and global Waze volunteer ecosystem is a fascinating question (no sarcasm intended, it’s an interesting topic). But probably this thread isn’t the best place to discuss it 
Considering that Waze doesn’t have 5,000 years of existence, and only about 8, we aren’t doing too badly! :lol:
If you would like to discuss this more send me a message.