voludu2 wrote:I have amended the above for clarity.

USA Runway names should follow the standard names used on the runways by the airports. These are found on FAA airport diagrams for all major airports. This can be recognized as ##[LCR]/##[LCR], but the important and simple thing is to just use the runway code actually used by the airport.

Examples which could occur at the same airport include "03L/21R", "03C/21C", "03R/21L"

Good. They are also found on the ground at the airport. You will see a number on the runway at either end of it. Put the lower number first. As a sanity check, the numbers will always be 18 apart.

Indeed. And look up any airport here on the FAA website, you'll see runways listed as "01/19" and "03L/21R".

krikketdoug wrote:This thread is more recent than some of the other threads I've read on the subject of airports.

After making some changes to ORD (Chicago) I'd like to bounce a couple of questions/thoughts off people here.

What is the current rule-of-thumb for the elevation of runways? I was under the impression that it should always be set at a 5.

As for taxiways, I can think of one case where we might want to include them. If a taxiway crosses over a driveable road.

Example: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 3,14891361

In this case, two taxiways cross over I-190 as you enter O'Hare. It's obviously not necessary to include for navigational purposes, but it is a great visual marker. (How many places can you drive under a moving airplane?)

Just a thought.

Krikket

Maybe I'm not the one to ask, but I think it'd look pretty cool if we mapped taxiways along with runways; the only problem is differentiating taxiways from runways is pretty hard. Maybe a single line around the edge of the runway to make it stand out But that's just me...

dbraughlr wrote:

PesachZ wrote: I posted a permalink to JFK airport in NYC on March 16th, you could also just check the sat view at any major airport.

Those markings are on the taxiway at the hold short line before the runway. They are not on the runway. Hyphens are the international standard. The pavement marking on the taxiway are essentially the same as the signs. Slants are not used.

He was agreeing with you, man.

We already decided not to include the airport identifier in the runway names. It's duplicative and messes with search (good luck getting staff to change it).

To the extent that information about choosing airport codes is not already present in the article about Places for airports, it should be transferred.

dbraughlr wrote:What are the objections to using the ICAO (else FAA) ID to name a runway?
Very few are pronounceable much less having any way to clutter searches.

We do not map for editors' convenience. We map for users in the client. There are several orders of magnitude more client users than there are editors.

ICAO is nearly always just IATA with K on the start. How is this any different? Doesn't mess with search the same way? Fine. But you are now adding a more obscure set of letters to each of the runways at each airport, duplicative but less understandable than the set of letters already included in the name of the large gray area on the client map... and why?

Need to FIX airport locations!

Enter the 3 letter code, MSP = Minneapolis St Paul airport, It should provide the address of the terminal where a normal passenger...99.99995% of Wazers want to go there.

Currently MSP leads one to 4300 Glumack Dr, St. Paul MN - This is the correct address, but the WAZE map does not have the right location. I think one can get to the control tower maybe. Leads to a restricted road. This is NOT useful!

If we're going to name them at all, I agree that we should definitely remove the airport ID, and convert to slashes (confirmed with an Air Traffic Controller that slashes are standard naming).

Again, I will argue for unnamed and locked high.

Runways should be a visual reference and nothing more. They should not have the potential to add more words to the map; the overlaid name of the airport place should be plenty of ID, and remain unencumbered .

The concern about runways appearing the same as driveable roads, once they render, is unfounded, IMHO : as near as I can tell, the coming display will render both runways and RR distinctly, once you are close enough that confusing them with a driveable road becomes an "issue" (PZ may be able to confirm or deny this).

And, to finish turning the poor horse into dog food, I double checked with the aforementioned Air Traffic Controller, and, while runways are indeed painted with hyphens (visible from the air, and something a driver should never see, in normal usage) standard terminology in FAA guidance for ATCs (and perhaps others) uses slashes. Pilots apparently get little exposure to this usage unless they are diligent students.

The mere fact that there exists this notation dichotomy argues for leaving runways un-numbered, at least. I'm trying to come up with any other situation in Waze where we include something as cryptic as runway numbering as an aid to Wazers.

Leave 'em blank, I say.

Sent from my SPH-L300 using Tapatalk

How often are you driving a car in the air?

Sent from my SPH-L300 using Tapatalk