Very nice

DwarfLord wrote:

jm6087 wrote:I guess my biggest issue is that it is being decided to pick and choose what type of airports/airstrips should be mapped. To me, this is not much different than picking and choosing which restaurants or small businesses should be mapped.

I hope there isn't a misunderstanding on this point. I don't believe anyone is saying we shouldn't map them. The question under discussion is whether they deserve an Area Place so that they will display on every Wazer's app as they pass through, even though passing Wazers are very unlikely to be familiar with them or to catch a glimpse of them.

MacroNav wrote: 1. unimproved grass field on a farm - no place, no runway segment

2. residential community (usually gated) with a private runway - no place, runway segment

The original post that started this discussion was actually about not mapping private airports at all, even with point places, and my proposed guidance was toward that end with the addition of provisions for "landmarks" basically. It's not the same as choosing which small businesses to map, because these are not businesses. They are not for public use at all, and as MacroNav said, are closer to RPPs. I see this as closer to the distinction between mapping any random farm vs. mapping only farms that are open for business on the property or are noteworthy landmarks.

That said, I guess it wouldn't hurt to map them as points, and sometimes we gotta compromise. I would like to keep category search free of pollution, even though I know most people would just search an airport by name. However, the category search for airports has a certain radius (I think 20 miles) and having a couple private airports in the results wouldn't be a big deal. There's really no other category that works if we want to map them as points.

I fall mostly into perspective 2. The fact that was Waze map has been spare doesn't mean that it should continue to be. You'd expect a map built by volunteers to be spare at first. Also, this has not been a monolithic characteristic across the platform (compare France with California!). I also disagree with saying "simpler is better," because our main concern should be making the map useful. The superior motto, also in the wiki, is "utility, simplicity, retention." That said, we came close to an agreement on policy here. Is a compromise available? We all seem to agree that if an airstrip is not visible and fairly maintained, it should not be mapped. These are not useful to anyone, probably not even to the owners themselves.

I have not added my voice to this thread but have been following with interest. I am strongly in the camp of Philosophy #1. I feel that Waze is a navigation app, not a mapping app. I could use Google Maps or Apple Maps if I wanted a mapping app. For example, I don't use the Waze app to "look around" in satellite view to see what is around my destination. I use Google Maps. Then I use Waze to find me the fastest path there. I don't really need nor care to know what's around me when I'm driving. I just want to know what my next turn is. Having a bunch of different sized and colored boxes around me with barely readable text is a distraction in my viewpoint.

Maybe this discussion needs to be split off into a separate thread.

Yep. It’s perfect like that. Wouldn’t change anything else as Sketch’s suggestions are spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have mapped DFW Airport to the perimeter fence which by in large follows highway and major arterial right-of-ways. While this does include some areas of undeveloped space it is filling in quickly with aviation related and commercial properties on the property itself. Also, All six of the DPS (FIRE/EMS) stations and two of three ACTs are ouside of the Air Operations Area fence. For what my $0.02 is worth I would capture the property at the outer fence for the area definition.

I believe that different geographies bring about nuances but we establish a standard across the board. We've got similar installations in the lower 48 that may be a grass or dirt field but are recognized on an aeronautical chart. My thoughts are if the airport/airfield/airstrip has an FAA identifier it qualifies to be an airport. Plus I concur with DwarfLord on the visual aspect. One more point of reference to a driver whether obvious or not couldn't hurt. It may be a remote chance but some Wazer may actually look for the location and we'll have it ready for them

jm6087 wrote: I agree if the hangars are separated from the houses like you example. I know I have seen one example in Texas (can't recall where right now) that the hangars are located in the backyard of each house. I don't think those should be included in the AP, just the airstrip.

So in cases of the fly-in communities would it be reasonable to keep them area place up to the extent of what would be referred to as the aircraft movement area? This would be up to the driveway equivalent of those communities. It could keep the airfield area and any public facilities included in the area place without encompassing the private residences and their wide and tall garages.

MacroNav's point is certainly valid that many of the airports in AK are in fact barely a well-manicured clearing for bush pilots to move about. While there may be an FAA identifier designating them as an airfield they are in fact privately owned. I can think of two I've seen somewhere in TX that were the same in that they were off the beaten path and privately owned. One, if I recall, did offer some form of flight training, however.

To the extent of the area vs point, if I had to vote on the topic I would keep them all as AP however define the extent better (property for large airports, fence for small airports, aircraft movement area for the residential/private strips). Full disclosure I do have an aviation background and that may incur a small bias but I'm for mapping any facility recognized as an airport as an airport.

I think my biggest concern with having the point or area option for airports is simply that it would (over time) require the changing of these facilities in WME and the time to determine are they truly private or public and if private is it a restricted use or just a call-ahead strip. I think TX has more than 2500 recognized airfields and I know we haven't done a recent clean-up on many. Not many airfields are being added new so changing the geometry type would be more of a retroactive application. Keeping them as an AP but having a clearer definition of the boundary would keep the standard simple.

Purely discussion with no argument from me. Just my $0.02

I took a look and that is an interesting place. Moreso the strange appearance in the app caught my attention as well. I'm curious if the rendering is in part to A) there also being an expansive state park overlaying the facility and B) that airport, the runways, and the surrounding road network needs a bit of work. I don't have EA over there or I would have taken a stab at it but I'll attach a screenshot of what I would change it to, ostensibly the RPZ or Runway Protection Zone. Even the roadways have a Hold Bar helping delineate a border. I'm wondering if cleaning this place up and replacing the Runways altogether would improve the display. It would be a good test subject nonetheless.