Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Moderator: Unholy

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby DwarfLord » Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:32 pm

The argument for the hyphen sounds like fine logic to me.
DwarfLord
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 617 times
Been thanked: 552 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby DwarfLord » Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:36 pm

Thinking further...another argument in favor of the hyphen is that it's more compatible with the existing guidance, which uses the hyphen.

This specific case is an epsilon away from "who cares" and as qwaletee points out borders on pedantry. But as a matter of principle, cosmetic shifts in guidance are best avoided unless absolutely justified. The last thing we want is for guidance to be perceived as capricious. Even guidance as minor as this. If minor guidance gets a bad rap it still reflects on the whole wiki.

So, after more thought, I'm increasingly in favor of the hyphen here.
DwarfLord
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 617 times
Been thanked: 552 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby DwarfLord » Tue Mar 17, 2015 7:57 pm

If the display will render runways in a manner impossible to confuse with drivable roads then I'd happily withdraw that concern.

However, there's a remaining tradeoff, one that I've struggled with the whole time I've been a Waze editor. That is the tradeoff between doing what's best for the driver and allowing editors to indulge themselves.

This tradeoff is nowhere more clear (to me, anyway) than it is with Walking Trails. The Walking Trail has its uses, but they are few, and there seems general agreement that most are unnecessary at best and potentially harmful to the driver's experience at worst. But there seems little support for removing them once created, and in fact it's not uncommon practice to lock them highly to prevent removal.

Personally I'd like to see Walking Trails removed in urbanized areas that are already congested with drivable roads (except where necessary for driver routing), and used sparingly if at all in hiking country rather than marking every little footpath going this way or that. But apparently the editing community has decided to pick its battles and that isn't one of them.

Which brings us back to runways. Call me a worrywart, but I bet that any runway without a name is going to get one sooner or later. Even if locked. It's possible (though probably unlikely) that someone will add new runway segments on top of the locked ones, and give those a name. Giving runways a name from the beginning gets out in front of these editors and at least ensures the name given follows some kind of a standard (e.g. deliberately omitting the FAA airport code so as not to corrupt searches).

So while I definitely appreciate the argument in favor of leaving them unnamed, and am personally OK with that if there's no chance of confusion, it does seem to me that the realpolitik of the situation suggests otherwise. For better or worse.
DwarfLord
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 617 times
Been thanked: 552 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby DwarfLord » Wed Mar 18, 2015 3:40 pm

Oh, a stairway here or there -- shrug. And hey if there are actually destinations on it well that's a horse of an entirely different color.

What I just haven't been able to get my head around are the Walking Trails like those I just posted over in the Incorrect edits thread. I get the sense the community has given up trying to remove these because they always come back, so instead we accept the possible damage to drivers' experience in favor of indulging editors who don't read or respect guidance. I can understand the realpolitik of that approach (oooh, I get to use that word twice in two days!) but that doesn't mean I'm gonna like it.
DwarfLord
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 617 times
Been thanked: 552 times

Re: FAA

Postby HavanaDay » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:44 pm

dbraughlr wrote:As the FAA decode sheet linked above shows, FDK identifies the following:
  • FREDERICK MUNI ARPT
  • FREDERICK MUNI ILS RWY 23 [radio beacon]
  • FREDERICK VOR [radio beacon]
  • FREDERICK RCO [remote communications outlet radio]

The ICAO code KFDK identifies solely and unambiguously Frederick Municipal Airport.


This is not a flying app. At least until we get flying cars. In a car you will not be driving the ILS, or driving to the VOR, and you certainly won't be talking to the RCO.

IATA Codes work. It is what people know. It is generally what is on their baggage claim. I don't think too many people know that Heathrow is EGLL, but they probably know it as LHR.
USA Country Manager
South Atlantic Regional Coordinator
AM North Carolina (Primary Focus Charlotte Metro)
HavanaDay
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Midland, NC
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 151 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby kentsmith9 » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:32 pm

In another thread we discussed this same issue and when I asked Waze staff about why they are routing us to the walking trail, they said they want to be able to get people to the front door if there is no road to get there.

Looking at Alan's example (which is correct based on another failure I found in San Jose just like it), it seems there is a problem with the routing currently that would favor walking 1 mile on a trail rather than parking 10 feet from the front entrance because the end of the walking trail is 5 feet from the entrance.

As for runways, I have always questioned the true purpose from Waze perspective, but assuming they want to market to pilots one day or we just want to see the airport as a landmark, we just need to be sure Waze will not include a runway as a routable segment once it appears in the client. Otherwise we will get routed to the back of the airport fence just because the runways are closer to the airport marker than the roadways in front of the terminal.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 945 times
Been thanked: 1101 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby kentsmith9 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:04 pm

DwarfLord wrote:I really don't see anything wrong in a "soft standard" here that articulates guidance in terms of "preferred" and "acceptable alternative" approaches. A soft standard has the advantage of not suddenly throwing the work of diligent wiki-abiding editors into noncompliance, while still establishing the consensus convention.

I think in this case we can easily describe the hierarchy for editors to follow and everyone can easily identify the proper entry. I updated the Wiki (with external links) based on the above conversation:
Wiki Update wrote:Name each runway using the airport identifier, the word ''Runway'', and the runway designations with the lower number first (e.g., "SMF Runway 16R-34L".) The primary airport identifier that should be used is the IATA 3-letter code, for example "SFO", "LAX", "JFK", etc. If the airport in question is not included in that list, use the ICAO 4-letter code instead. If the airport is not included in that list use the FAA identifier.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 945 times
Been thanked: 1101 times

Re: IATA, ICAO, FAA

Postby kentsmith9 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:08 pm

DwarfLord wrote:This is a wiki for the US only.

Technically this is a USA page yes. However we have 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.

Otherwise I agree the FAA code appears to be the easier and complete solution for the US alone.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 945 times
Been thanked: 1101 times

Re: dual-use taxiways

Postby kentsmith9 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:41 am

dbraughlr wrote:
sketch wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by a "dual use taxiway"; if it really is a taxiway also used as a public road, or as a small airport's parking lot, then that's fine.

Dual-use roadways in Cameron Park, California.

Good example. I added a link to the area and an image to the Road Types/USA page.

sketch wrote:Runways are displayed in 3.8.0 in the default day scheme only.

Confirmed. Although I noticed that many of the airports around me in the bay area have huge sections of the runways not displaying as if the names of the Places layer is obscuring it by about the size of a map tile. SFO is highly broken up as an example. Makes it pretty much useless as a navigation aide for a driver. :lol:
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 945 times
Been thanked: 1101 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby krikketdoug » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:54 pm

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
Krikket
a.k.a. Doug Krick

ImageImage
Chicago Speed and Traffic Cameras
http://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/traffic/
krikketdoug
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:01 am
Location: Villa Park, Illinois, USA
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 14 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users