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.

- which is repeating what I said.

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.

Without an answer to or even a quote of my question, I suppose it is doomed to remain a mystery.

Are you saying that if someone puts an IATA or FAA location identifier on a runway, it affects the client?

pumrum wrote:Where an airport code is required use IATA and fall back on FAA if IATA doesn't exist.

There appeared to be consensus on this point. As of this time, the change has not been made to the wiki.

I do agree with sketch though that we should probably leave the identifier off of the runway segments

On the grounds that they might show up in the client app someday and it would be bad if the IATA code appeared on them?

sketch wrote:I don't know what "FAA code" is.

The IATA three-letter code is the one familiar to consumers. People fly to "SFO" or "DFW" or "LAX" or "JFK". For that reason, consensus is to use the IATA code if it exists, and the ICAO code (I believe) if it does not.

And then if there is no ICAO code, then the FAA code.
The FAA code is the same as the ICAO code when there is one for the airport.
Thus it suffices to say use IATA else use FAA.

DwarfLord wrote:

Current Road Types (USA) wrote:(the IATA code and FAA code are nearly always identical).

Unfortunately, that really is not accurate and doesn't add any clarity.

When the airport does not have an assigned IATA identifier, the ICAO 4-letter code is used, or absent that, the FAA identifier is used.

DwarfLord wrote:Is that wrong?

It's not a clear statement.
The FAA identifier is derived from the ICAO code by dropping the initial letter (region code) if the airport has an ICAO code. An ICAO code is unique internationally.

BOS is the identifier assigned by the FAA to the primary navigational aid associated with the KBOS airport.

Before GPS, flying to BOS (the radio beacon) was the way to fly to the airport.
Now, if I put into the GPS a destination of BOS, I fly to the Boston VOR (radio beacon).
If I want to fly directly to the airport, I put in the airport identifier KBOS.

The three letter code is normally a VOR. The ICAO code is the airfield.
The FAA airport identifier actually means the primary radio beacon, not the airfield itself or the runways.

DwarfLord wrote:This is a wiki for the US only. If every airport in the US has an FAA identifier, why bother with IATA or ICAO?

In one case, the FAA identifier won't be the IATA code. The IATA is the one most familiar to the public.

kentsmith9 wrote:… a lot of countries that follow the US standard exactly. Therefore when there are options that are more universal, we do our best to use the more flexible solution.

The order of precedence IATA, ICAO, national civil aviation authority (FAA in USA) identifier should work universally.

kentsmith9 wrote:… I agree the FAA code appears to be the easier and complete solution for the US alone.

I expect that someone mapping runways for KDWA is most likely to call the airport KDWA (ICAO identifier; there is no IATA code DWA, and no beacon DWA). KDWA unambiguously refers to the airfield. Thus three-letter codes are IATA, four-letter codes are ICAO, and anything else is national. If you use FAA codes where there is an ICAO code, then you cannot tell whether it is an IATA code because it looks like one.

If you want an international standard, use the hierarchy. In my opinion, it is simple enough.

If you want purely national consistency and don't care to use IATA, use only the FAA identifier. But understand that the FAA often identifies airports by the full ICAO code because it is unambiguous.