Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Moderator: Unholy

Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby pumrum » Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:12 pm

Not to resurrect what should be a very dead horse -- but as of 3.9, runways are now returned in search results (can't say for certain that they weren't before, but they definitely are now). If we continue with our current naming standard (ABC Runway 18-36), and someone searches for the airport identifier, all of the runways turn up in the search results. In my opinion, this is not desirable.

Given this, unless the search engine is modified to omit runway segments from the result, I think we should backtrack slightly and name the runways simply "Runway 18-36" and omit the identifier.

[ img ]
pumrum
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:02 am
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 299 times

Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby sketch » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:00 pm

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Naming standard of "LR" or "RL"? or lower number first always regardless of L or R? How about runways with no L-R?

Lower number first regardless of LR. That's how I always see them listed. Look at a Wikipedia article about an airport.

IMO "4L/22R" and "4R/22L" looks better and more balanced than "4L/22R" and "22L/4R" anyway.

Pavement markings on perpendicular taxiways order the numbers one way or the other depending on which direction you're facing. Seems paradoxical, but the first number is the azimuth to the right and the second number is the azimuth to the left. So if you're facing north, about to intersect an east-west runway, you'll see "9-27" – 90° (east) to the right, and 270° (west) to the left. Across the runway, facing south, the marking says "27-9".

Point being that it's arbitrary, and that convention seems to put the lower number first when the name is used outside of a particular sort of context.

Also, is there confirmation that runways, like walking trails, definitely DO NOT cause routing problems? Specifically, if a runway is closer to the google search result (because G is still the preferred POI provider) than any other segment, then Waze may try to route as close as it can to that runway.

Yes. They've been there at MSY for almost a year, not causing any problems.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 1884 times

Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby pumrum » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:15 pm

The US Road Types are being overhauled and driveable roads are being discussed in detail here.

I propose that those who wish to engage in a lively discussion on guidance relating to Runways, Taxiways, and other features around airports such as airport parking lots, rental car facilities, taxi staging areas, etc. Some of these topics are covered in other areas such as Parking Lots and Private Roads, but I think Waze would benefit from standardization around airports. The more consistent Waze is around major travel hubs, the better the user experience will be. The product of these discussions could be used to enhance or complement existing wiki pages.

A couple examples to start:

Runways - Naming
I would recommend using the FAA identifier rather than the ICAO identifier for runway markings. I think if you try to standardize on ICAO (KXXX) you will just end up confusing the masses -- most people recognize the FAA identifier. Further, some airfields don't have an ICAO identifier but all airfields have an FAA identifier.
Name each runway using the FAA airport identifier, the word runway, and the runway designations with the lower number first (e.g., "KSMF Runway 16R-34L".)

Change to: (e.g., "SMF Runway 16R-34L".)


Runways - Elevation
I would recommend setting the standard that all runways should be set to elevation = ground (0). In the rare instances where a road crosses under a runway's path, the road should deviate elevation to the negative. In the extremely rare case where a runway and a road intersect, no junction should be formed and the road should deviate elevation to the positive so it appears over the runway. This would make it easy to standardize on 0 for runway elevation, since the vast majority of runways never cross paths with a road.


Taxiways
I would recommend providing guidance that airport taxiways should not be mapped. In many larger airports the taxiways can be quite complex, would appear the same size/color as runways, and would reduce the distinctive appearance of the runways being identified as runways. Google Maps solves this by using a thinner, lighter line for taxiways. Waze should just omit them.


Restricted Access Roads
I would recommend that segments which require SIDA or other TSA, DHS, or airport authority credentials to access should not be mapped in Waze. Some may disagree - but until Waze offers some way to alert the user that their destination may be in a restricted area like google, navigon, garmin, and some others do - I don't think it is safe or prudent to even have the ability to possibly maybe route someone onto airport property.
I would concede that you could map the segments as long as they were never connected to the main driveable network (similar to railroads and walking paths), but we would need a way for WME Validator to flag that. Ideas?


Standardized Airport Feature Naming (Roads, Lots, Places, etc)
bgodette wrote:That discussion will likely lead to standardized naming of important navigational points that aren't normal Places, eg "SFO - Rental Return" "SFO - Cell Waiting" "DIA - Arrivals East" etc.

bgodette brought up a good point here - there could be value in standardizing the naming of some common features at major airports such as cell phone waiting lots, arrivals/departures access, rental car location, etc.
pumrum
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:02 am
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 299 times

Re: taxiways

Postby dbraughlr » Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:01 am

Runways almost never appear to touch a road on the map. Mapping taxiways definitely reduces the distinctiveness of runways as seen in WME. Personally, I am not keen on having unusable roads in the app because sometimes I drive using the map rather than navigation. I don't want to be lost at an airport and have to contend with a clutter of taxiways which inevitably will be connected to or at least much closer to usable roads.

But the rules for big airports don't have to be the same as for small airports.
An advantage of mapping any non-drivable path is that it can be locked to prevent it from being attached to the drivable roadway or paved from the app.

I can imagine that there are exceptions where having a taxiway mapped could be useful, but not because anyone drives on it (as suggested by jdwaters). Ultimately whether taxiways are mapped doesn't matter much to me. I just don't see the point unless it is to prevent newbies from mapping them.

Taxiways tend to be a complex network at larger airports and if they are shown in the app, I think they would be more clutter rather than useful for orientation. So I agree with pumrum on that.

Example of small airport where taxiway crosses a public road.

Dual use taxiways should be mapped as streets or parking lot roads. But they must not connect to runways. I think we never want a connection from a drivable road to a runway, railroad, walking trail, or staircase. So if a taxiway is mapped, it should not connect to a runway.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: runways

Postby dbraughlr » Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:08 am

Are you saying that if someone puts an IATA or FAA location identifier on a runway, it affects the client?
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: runways

Postby dbraughlr » Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:09 am

Without an answer to or even a quote of my question, I suppose it is doomed to remain a mystery.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: runways

Postby sketch » Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:46 pm

dbraughlr wrote:That seems lot a lot of assumptions about what I should be doing or why it couldn't possibly be of any use to me. I didn't mean to imply that I was editing an airport. I might be scrolling through looking at URs. I might be editing nearby. It doesn't matter why I am there. I prefer to check an airport by looking at (or clicking on) a runway rather than turning on Places layer, clicking on the area, then turning Places layer off. It is just extremely simple.

What you're missing (or refusing to acknowledge) is that the names' usefulness to you in the editor is beside the point. Yet again, we edit for the client and the navigation server, not for the editor.

Maybe you're hearing me, maybe we're saying the same things, but you're missing the point.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 1884 times

Re: runways

Postby dbraughlr » Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:08 pm

dbraughlr wrote:For editing, I like the ID on the runways because I often have the Places layer turned off.
If runways start showing in the app with the names, then how they are named matters a lot more....

sketch wrote:
dbraughlr wrote:
sketch wrote:... we should always be editing with the client, not the editor, in mind, since the client is what users see and what matters.

- which is repeating what I said.

No. Slow it down. Read it again.

What exactly is effectively different between your statement and mine?
My premise is that runway names don't appear in the client. Your premise is that they will someday.
If I start with your premise, we reach the same conclusion. Ergo, what you wrote repeats what I wrote.

sketch wrote:And whatever airport-identifying advantages ... codes in runway names would have in the editor are basically nil. If you're actually in the editor paying attention to the airport, editing the airport, you will have turned the Places layer on at least once to check that the airport's Area Place is proper and conforming, so you would already be aware of which airport you are working on.

That seems lot a lot of assumptions about what I should be doing or why it couldn't possibly be of any use to me. I didn't mean to imply that I was editing an airport. I might be scrolling through looking at URs. I might be editing nearby. It doesn't matter why I am there. I prefer to check an airport by looking at (or clicking on) a runway rather than turning on Places layer, clicking on the area, then turning Places layer off. It is just extremely simple.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: runways

Postby dbraughlr » Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:48 am

- which is repeating what I said.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: runways

Postby dbraughlr » Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:06 am

sketch wrote:the identifier will already be in the Place name, making the name on the runways redundant.

- except for people like myself who edit with the places layer mostly off.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Next

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users