I find value in having even the small private airfields mapped. Coming from a public safety background I can tell you there were multiple 911 calls for downed aircraft due to the fact that a local airfield was not visible and the driver saw a low flying plane. Now granted this is not the reason to map things but only a reason why I enjoy seeing them on the map.

That being said, I dont know if the FAA identified is necessary in the primary name if the airport doesnt have a IATA identifier. The airport is probably small enough only a very small number of people would navigate to it and the average driver is only seeing additional text on the screen which doesnt provide much valuable information. It could be an alternative name to assist search function.

You are trying to solve one off scenarios with an all encompassing national policy. There needs to be a level of local discretion. In the case of Borrego this unique due to the multiple areas layered here. Again something working with the regions leadership can probably be solved.

If a place has gone through the process of obtaining an FAA identifier then it should be an airport and subsequently an area place. If we want to better define what is included with the area place then great. Maybe something simple shared resources to support the operation of the airfield. resources will carry from area to area on how we can determine if something is common or private property and at the end of the day since we don’t have a corresponding satellite view of the location in the app small variables on the borders will not impact the end user.

Mapping private airports should still occur. They can still be a navigation destination for a driver.

While the lack of in app satellite view does curtail the use of Waze for scrolling around/browsing the area, there is still use for this for the average wazer. The functionality exists to click on the map and navigate to there. A person might use this functionality for specific area place destinations (although this is inefficient).

I am against the addition of additional text to the name for the smaller private airfields. These are ones that are being debated if they should even rise to the area place, added clutter on the map with a longer name is definitely not beneficial.

The real question is can we find a definition that would help resolve the the area vs place debate? I can see the argument that some small airfields are not worth mapping as an area place but we need an objective definition. I am still leaning towards area place, as most airfields low flying planes are visible far from the roads that abut the property. We might not always see the exact runway but the their presence is apparent.

We have seen examples of small airfields not mapped out there because an editor never got around to it. I would hope that if an editor decides to go on a binge adding small airfields that the local community might be able to redirect them to more valuable activities. At the end of the day, however is it the biggest risk that they are added?

Unpaved runways and those that service residences should be point places?

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

I added the caveat about military airfields and more alt name examples.

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.

Airport draft page wrote:Each airport should be drawn as a single area place, covering all the airport property and including any runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, control towers or other structures. This will ensure visibility on the map.

That's what's on the page now. Are you suggesting it be expanded to something like this?

Each airport should be drawn as a single area place, covering all the airport property to the fenceline and including any runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, control towers or other structures. This will ensure visibility on the map.

kentsmith9 wrote: I was just thinking it might be good to add one more section at the end. (I have not yet added it.)

I added your section; changed the words a tiny bit.

Any other changes to be made?

Done!