Switch to full style
Post a reply

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:58 pm


Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:57 am

juliansean wrote:If I am a private pilot and I search for an airport I want to go to a place where I can go see planes. Should I be removed from using Waze because I don't just search for our regional airports? Of course not. The idea of Waze is to be used by all. I think we have all agreed with the idea, if there is an FAA identifier, someone has taken the time to make sure that airport qualifies as an airport. And, if that airport doesn't actually exist, it's our job as editors to remove it from the map.

It seems like the trouble really is with private airports, meaning four-digit FAA identifiers that are usually simple grass fields without any storage of planes, maybe used by a farmer or two to launch crop dusters. Sean, as a pilot would you find those results valuable? They do exist but may not be easy to see from imagery. I've mapped a couple around me, but they do show up in category search, along with general aviation airports and larger commercial facilities, as MacroNav pointed out. Could we draw the line between public and private airports, or am I oversimplifying?

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:21 am

It seems that many (not all) agree there's a line to be drawn across which an airport doesn't qualify to be mapped as an area place. As DL said, area places are for orientation, but they're also searchable and navigable, we should consider both sides of that coin. The line seems to be at least whether an airport can be used by the public (not whether it is publicly owned). Having visible facilities is also helpful for orientation, but those usually go hand-in-hand. Fly-in communities, which are mentioned on the road types page BTW, are just one type of airfield that is usually for private use.

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.

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:07 pm

We're not talking about IATA or ICAO codes. All of the borderline kinds of airports being discussed here are too small to have either. We're talking about FAA identifiers, which are given to any aviation-related facility in the US. All public-use airports have three-character FAA identifiers. The bigger ones have three-letter identifiers, which are usually the same as the IATA code if one is given. The smaller public-use airports have two numbers and a letter. Private-use airports, whether they are jointly owned for fly-in communities or singly owned for use by one person or family, have four-character FAA identifiers, with two letters and two numbers. A lot of the info on airport codes is already in the airport page. Anyway, I was proposing last night to just say we don't map any private-use airports.

However, after looking up a bit more, there are a few private-use airports that might be noticeable for orientation or used as destinations, mainly within large fly-in communities like Jumbolair, so we need to provide for those. My idea for guidance goes closer to what DL proposed, but since many private airports are not fly-in communities, it should be more general, and I think we can agree that all public-use airports should be mapped, no matter how small. So how about adding this section at the top of the page:

Scope wrote:==Scope==
Airport area places should be drawn for all public-use airports, regardless of size or facilities. Most private-use airports are difficult to see, even from the air, and should not be mapped. Private-use airports should only be mapped if they are visually obvious from public roads or could reasonably serve as a destination for drivers. For how to distinguish between public-use and private-use airports, see Names.

The airport category should only be used on airport area places and on point places for airline terminals. For other airport-associated business places, such as charter services or air freight forwarders, use a different category.

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:21 pm

Very nice

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:03 pm

DwarfLord wrote:
jm6087 wrote:I guess my biggest issue is that it is being decided to pick and choose what type of airports/airstrips should be mapped. To me, this is not much different than picking and choosing which restaurants or small businesses should be mapped.

I hope there isn't a misunderstanding on this point. I don't believe anyone is saying we shouldn't map them. The question under discussion is whether they deserve an Area Place so that they will display on every Wazer's app as they pass through, even though passing Wazers are very unlikely to be familiar with them or to catch a glimpse of them.

MacroNav wrote:1. unimproved grass field on a farm - no place, no runway segment

2. residential community (usually gated) with a private runway - no place, runway segment

The original post that started this discussion was actually about not mapping private airports at all, even with point places, and my proposed guidance was toward that end with the addition of provisions for "landmarks" basically. It's not the same as choosing which small businesses to map, because these are not businesses. They are not for public use at all, and as MacroNav said, are closer to RPPs. I see this as closer to the distinction between mapping any random farm vs. mapping only farms that are open for business on the property or are noteworthy landmarks.

That said, I guess it wouldn't hurt to map them as points, and sometimes we gotta compromise. I would like to keep category search free of pollution, even though I know most people would just search an airport by name. However, the category search for airports has a certain radius (I think 20 miles) and having a couple private airports in the results wouldn't be a big deal. There's really no other category that works if we want to map them as points.

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:03 pm

I fall mostly into perspective 2. The fact that was Waze map has been spare doesn't mean that it should continue to be. You'd expect a map built by volunteers to be spare at first. Also, this has not been a monolithic characteristic across the platform (compare France with California!). I also disagree with saying "simpler is better," because our main concern should be making the map useful. The superior motto, also in the wiki, is "utility, simplicity, retention." That said, we came close to an agreement on policy here. Is a compromise available? We all seem to agree that if an airstrip is not visible and fairly maintained, it should not be mapped. These are not useful to anyone, probably not even to the owners themselves.

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Mon May 08, 2017 5:58 pm

Great looking page. I made a few direct changes.

https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/in ... did=154243

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.

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Mon May 08, 2017 10:20 pm

sketch wrote:Regarding car rental facilities, ... the text is good, but the "on-premises" and "off-premises" labels are a bit confusing. ...

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.
sketch wrote: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).

Good catch, Marc.

I support all of Marc's changes.

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Wed May 10, 2017 9:34 am

Good here.
Post a reply