Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:56 pm
I have not added my voice to this thread but have been following with interest. I am strongly in the camp of Philosophy #1. I feel that Waze is a navigation app, not a mapping app. I could use Google Maps or Apple Maps if I wanted a mapping app. For example, I don't use the Waze app to "look around" in satellite view to see what is around my destination. I use Google Maps. Then I use Waze to find me the fastest path there. I don't really need nor care to know what's around me when I'm driving. I just want to know what my next turn is. Having a bunch of different sized and colored boxes around me with barely readable text is a distraction in my viewpoint.
Maybe this discussion needs to be split off into a separate thread.
Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:40 am
Yep. It’s perfect like that. Wouldn’t change anything else as Sketch’s suggestions are spot on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:00 pm
I have mapped DFW Airport to the perimeter fence which by in large follows highway and major arterial right-of-ways. While this does include some areas of undeveloped space it is filling in quickly with aviation related and commercial properties on the property itself. Also, All six of the DPS (FIRE/EMS) stations and two of three ACTs are ouside of the Air Operations Area fence. For what my $0.02 is worth I would capture the property at the outer fence for the area definition.
Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:58 pm
I believe that different geographies bring about nuances but we establish a standard across the board. We've got similar installations in the lower 48 that may be a grass or dirt field but are recognized on an aeronautical chart. My thoughts are if the airport/airfield/airstrip has an FAA identifier it qualifies to be an airport. Plus I concur with DwarfLord on the visual aspect. One more point of reference to a driver whether obvious or not couldn't hurt. It may be a remote chance but some Wazer may actually look for the location and we'll have it ready for them
Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:03 pm
jm6087 wrote:I agree if the hangars are separated from the houses like you example. I know I have seen one example in Texas (can't recall where right now) that the hangars are located in the backyard of each house. I don't think those should be included in the AP, just the airstrip.
So in cases of the fly-in communities would it be reasonable to keep them area place up to the extent of what would be referred to as the aircraft movement area? This would be up to the driveway equivalent of those communities. It could keep the airfield area and any public facilities included in the area place without encompassing the private residences and their wide and tall garages.
Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:10 pm
MacroNav's point is certainly valid that many of the airports in AK are in fact barely a well-manicured clearing for bush pilots to move about. While there may be an FAA identifier designating them as an airfield they are in fact privately owned. I can think of two I've seen somewhere in TX that were the same in that they were off the beaten path and privately owned. One, if I recall, did offer some form of flight training, however.
To the extent of the area vs point, if I had to vote on the topic I would keep them all as AP however define the extent better (property for large airports, fence for small airports, aircraft movement area for the residential/private strips). Full disclosure I do have an aviation background and that may incur a small bias but I'm for mapping any facility recognized as an airport as an airport.
I think my biggest concern with having the point or area option for airports is simply that it would (over time) require the changing of these facilities in WME and the time to determine are they truly private or public and if private is it a restricted use or just a call-ahead strip. I think TX has more than 2500 recognized airfields and I know we haven't done a recent clean-up on many. Not many airfields are being added new so changing the geometry type would be more of a retroactive application. Keeping them as an AP but having a clearer definition of the boundary would keep the standard simple.
Purely discussion with no argument from me. Just my $0.02
Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:46 am
I took a look and that is an interesting place. Moreso the strange appearance in the app caught my attention as well. I'm curious if the rendering is in part to A) there also being an expansive state park overlaying the facility and B) that airport, the runways, and the surrounding road network needs a bit of work. I don't have EA over there or I would have taken a stab at it but I'll attach a screenshot of what I would change it to, ostensibly the RPZ or Runway Protection Zone. Even the roadways have a Hold Bar helping delineate a border. I'm wondering if cleaning this place up and replacing the Runways altogether would improve the display. It would be a good test subject nonetheless.
- (103.02 KiB) Downloaded 187 times
Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:14 pm
jm6087 wrote:...As with any place mapped, no place should be mapped just because GIS-L or even a website shows something there. If there is no airport/airstrip then it shouldn't be mapped.
Just because McDonald's has a place listed on their own website with an address and phone number, etc, doesn't mean you map it if the McDonald's does not exist in real life.
This is ostensibly the crux of what I am believing whether or not I conveyed it correctly. If there is nothing there, in this case, a legitimately defined airstrip and/or associated support facility then no area place should be applied. As for the Borrengo example my only effort there was to offer what I could see from the pavement markings to address the topic of housing / airport boundaries and also what I thought could be contributing to the display issue and have always stood by the premise there will be exceptions to the rule and also local leadership can and should be involved with those scenarios. As with any of the guidance, there is an opportunity to improve understanding as we encounter more anomalies to better define our practice.
Airports are somewhat near and dear to me and not only have provided a living for me but also are a subject I cut my teeth upon when I started volunteering with Waze. It's a topic I can get involved with since I don't know enough coding to keep up with the script folks
Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:58 pm
So instead of coming up with complicated and subjective rules, let's just use the distinction already made by the FAA
FAA paragraph 1-2-7e wrote:Two−letter, two−number identifiers are assigned to private−use landing facilities in the United States and its jurisdictions which do not meet the requirements for three−character assignments
If an airport has a four-character identifier, don't map it. All the examples given of places that shouldn't or should be mapped, on both sides of the argument, fit this distinction.
Purely for the purpose of thinking out loud and clarification the four character/private use fields would A) Not be mapped at all, or B) Mapped as an airport but not as an area place allowing it to be searched, or C) mapped as a Place Point but under a different place category? In the case of B or C could we utilize the naming convention MacroNav mentioned or something of the like?
Purely thought for discussion. I think this is a much needed conversation and thank all who have put in their thoughts on the subject.
Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:46 pm
I would get behind this description.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.