pumrum wrote:To supplement this, a non-driveable segment such as a runway should never be connected to the driveable segment network, so the routing engine would not be able to route you onto a runway - even if a landmark/place marker stop point was physically on top of the runway. it will route you to the nearest driveable segment
sketch wrote:AlanOfTheBerg wrote:That's not the problem which some non-driveable segments will cause. It will, with walking trails, for example, see that a walking trail, not connected to any other segment, is closest to the lat/lon of the search result, and then will route you to the spot on the segment closest to that walking trail it can get.
Pretty sure that's only true of non-drivables which are currently visible in the client. Walking trails are displayed in the client; runways are not.
pumrum wrote:You mention FAA identifier but then listed an ICAO identifier. 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.
daknife wrote:You don't need runways with or without proper designations as nobody is driving on them. When Waze adds a flight path option then add them and every minute detail a pilot could want.
pumrum wrote:... assumes you would be near an airport, know enough to use it as a reference, but some how not know which one it is and have to look at the IATA identifier just to make sure you're not at the wrong airport
Users browsing this forum: No registered users