[New Page] Places/Airport

Moderator: USA Champs

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby jm6087 » Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:02 pm

MacroNav wrote:Brosius Field Airport (9NE8) Logan County, Nebraska. Farm field - no runway, no buildings. https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 844&zoom=4

I agree that this shouldn't be mapped because there is no sign/evidence of an airport/airstrip anywhere.

MacroNav wrote:Diamond Bar Jones Airport, Nebraska. They've actually mowed an area for a plane to land. Nothing else there. https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 686&zoom=4

I agree that this shouldn't be mapped because there is no sign/evidence of an airport/airstrip anywhere.

MacroNav wrote:Rainbow Field, Texas - nothing there https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 02.2334685

I agree that this shouldn't be mapped because there is no sign/evidence of an airport/airstrip anywhere.

MacroNav wrote:Whites airport, Iowa - middle of a corn field. https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 999&zoom=4

I agree that this shouldn't be mapped because there is no sign/evidence of an airport/airstrip anywhere.

MacroNav wrote:Martin Fierro Airport, middle of a field, Wisconsin. https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 985&zoom=5

I agree that this shouldn't be mapped because there is no sign/evidence of an airport/airstrip anywhere.

MacroNav wrote:Blews Airport, middle of a farm, New Jersey https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 288&zoom=5

I don't see an issue with this one be mapped, there is an obvious airstrip


Someone mapping all but the last one should be asked where the actual evidence of an airport/airstrip is.
As with any place mapped, no place should be mapped just because GIS-L or even a website shows something there. If there is no airport/airstrip then it shouldn't be mapped.
Just because McDonald's has a place listed on their own website with an address and phone number, etc, doesn't mean you map it if the McDonald's does not exist in real life.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Lone Star State, Hook 'em Horns
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1970 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby jm6087 » Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:52 pm

I think this can be removed since it is cover in the next sentence.

Most private-use airports are difficult to see, even from the air, and should not be mapped.


I also think if the airstrip and/or aviation-related structures are visually obvious from satellite, they should be mapped. Here is my suggested changes.

==Scope==
Airport area places should be drawn for all public-use airports, regardless of size or facilities. Most private-use airports are difficult to see, even from the air, and should not be mapped. Private-use airports should only be mapped as Area Place if a large clearing and/or easily-recognizable aviation-related structures are visually obvious from public roads or satellite view, or the airport offers services to the general public such as flying lessons or demonstrations. For how to distinguish between public-use and private-use airports, see Names.

===Category===
The airport category should only be used either for facilities that qualify for airport area places or on point places for airline terminals. For other airport-associated business places, such as charter services or air freight forwarders, use a different category should be used.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Lone Star State, Hook 'em Horns
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1970 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby jm6087 » Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:19 pm

DwarfLord wrote:, but whether to draw it depends on visibility to drivers on nearby roads.


To the best of my knowledge we don't use "visibility to drivers on nearby roads" as a reason to map other objects. If a location is buried far back and is not visible to drivers, we still map them if the place is supposed to be.

I guess I am really confused on what the real desire to not map a visually obvious airstrip/airport is.
If it is because of people mapping airports that don't exist as stated in OP, that is solved in this verbiage.
MacroNav wrote:Drawing Airport Area Places over every landing strip does not help Wazers, and in my opinion can be confusing if they're looking for an airport for visual orientation, but nothing is there.

If is is because of polluting the category search results, I don't think this is valid. I don't believe that anyone uses the category search for Airports if they are trying to find a specific airport. They will search by the name or identifier that is on their ticket. In fact, the only reason I believe that someone may use the category search for Airport is to find something that is not a major airport and then I would say that the major airport actually pollutes the results more than the other way.

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.
Again, if it obviously exists then why not map it.

I also think that it is easier for a region to "opt out" of mapping certain locations than it would be to "opt in" to mapping them. That is what the regional/state wiki's are for.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Lone Star State, Hook 'em Horns
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1970 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby jm6087 » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:56 am

DwarfLord wrote: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.


I think I may have been misunderstanding on whether they should be mapped. If there is not an issue with mapping an airstrip that is not obviously visible from a public road, then my question is what are the drawbacks from them being an Area Place?
Is it just because someone will see it in the app? Is it because someone will see it in the app and want to drive to it?
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Lone Star State, Hook 'em Horns
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1970 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby jm6087 » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:12 pm

DwarfLord wrote:
Kartografer wrote:The original post that started this discussion was actually about not mapping private airports at all, even with point places...

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood this. I do suspect, however, you meant to say "not mapping barely-used, lacking-any-services, invisible-from-the-road, non-public-facing private airports at all" because unless I've misunderstood (again) the OP was primarily concerned about certain remote Alaska airstrips that basically amount to a dirt road behind a few residences where the extent of "services" is that Old Butch comes out with his chainsaw and cuts a few trees every Spring.

jm6087 wrote:...what are the drawbacks from them being an Area Place? Is it just because someone will see it in the app? Is it because someone will see it in the app and want to drive to it?

The question "what's wrong with adding an Area Place" has been wildly contentious for all the years I've been involved with Waze and I don't have enough beer on hand to see me through another such discussion :mrgreen: But personally, I see no orientation or emergency value in making unknown, invisible, barely-maintained, backyard airstrips part of every Wazer's display experience.


I have never said that "invisible, barely-maintained, backyard airstrips" or "basically amount to a dirt road behind a few residences where the extent of "services" is that Old Butch comes out with his chainsaw and cuts a few trees every Spring" should be part of mapping. In fact I have stated that if it is not an obvious airstrip (visible, fairly-maintained) airstrip then it should not be mapped at all.

My only thing is that to be visible from the street should not be a factor to decide between Area Place or Point Place.

If you look at my post a few days ago. The only one that I think we are in disagreement about is the last one.
Since Area Places are no longer an issue with rendering in the app, the Area Places in question would be generally small in size anyway and we are talking about areas of the map where map clutter is not a concern, I still don't see an issue with them being an Area Place.
I do agree that if we are going to map the ones like the first 5 in that post (I don't think they should be IMO), then they should only be points.

I actually do like the concept of the naming convention for Private Airstrips to help differentiate them to the user.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Lone Star State, Hook 'em Horns
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1970 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby jm6087 » Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:15 am

MacroNav wrote:Thank you everyone for your thoughtful consideration. I think DL has well understood and summarized my position.

I think Perspective #1 fits best with Waze's "Simpler is better" philosophy. Although sometimes I do find myself arguing for a type of area place, I recognize that the burden is on me to justify why an area is appropriate.


I never thought about there being 2 basic perspectives and after reading DLs explanations, I obviously fall more under perspective #2 with a hint of #1. I used to be more under #1 but have changed in the recent past since the app looks a little less blank with some additional Area Places. Our region has recently started adding some forests just to have an app that is not a bunch of lines.

I think that each perspective is (as DL alluded to) the way various editors look at mapping area places, I don't think Waze has a "Simpler is better" philosophy (especially when it comes to mapping area places). If they did then we wouldn't have PLAs showing everywhere on the map.

Thanks for the lively and respectful debate on this subject.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Lone Star State, Hook 'em Horns
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1970 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby jm6087 » Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:15 am

From what I can tell, the airstrip you pointed out will not cause a bad display appearance in the app for any user (from either having a long name or being an area place)

In fact, looking at the satellite view it will probably be the only thing on the display for quite a while. If having a single area place and name displayed on the app is an issue then the driver would never be able to drive in a small city much less Dallas or L.A.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Lone Star State, Hook 'em Horns
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1970 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby jm6087 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:33 pm

MacroNav wrote:
sketch wrote:The proposed policy is to use area places for all airports. That's it. No more, no less. The principles stated here work well for the category of airports, and discussion here need focus only on airports. If we are satisfied that airports are well served with the proposed guidance for airports, we can move on to details.


My main request is to set limits to the definition of "Airport." If it is a public or private facility that has an improved runway, provides services, transient parking, leased hangers, etc. - sounds like an airport to me. A backyard or farm airstrip that is mowed once a year for use only by the property owner doesn't, and fills the app with spurious data.

To me it's similar to how we don't generally go through sat view mapping every track across private property as a Street. We have a separate type for PR, and we only add these if they go to a residence. We don't map inside most industrial facilities, mines, etc. We don't allow Place Points for "Mom's House" - we have RPP's instead. These types distinguish between what is useful to the public and what is useful only for the property owner/resident. I suggest we apply similar discrimination to airfields, and follow a naming standard so there is distinction in the app between those welcoming the public and those that aren't.


If we didn't have RPPs, we would probably have some sort of guidance for "Mom's House" to map them. If there was a different option for the various types of airports then we could have guidance accordingly, but we don't.

In all my discussions, I have agreed that an airstrip that is mowed once a year does not qualify as an airstrip. That is why 4 or 5 pages ago I added "or satellite view" to the scope. Odds are "mowed once a year" won't be visible from satellite.

==Scope==
Airport area places should be drawn for all public-use airports, regardless of size or facilities. Private-use airports should only be mapped as Area Place if a large clearing and/or easily-recognizable aviation-related structures are visually obvious from public roads or satellite view, or the airport offers services to the general public such as flying lessons or demonstrations. For how to distinguish between public-use and private-use airports, see Names.

===Category===
The airport category should only be used either for facilities that qualify for airport area places or on point places for airline terminals. For other airport-associated business places, such as charter services or air freight forwarders, a different category should be used.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Lone Star State, Hook 'em Horns
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1970 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby jm6087 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:57 pm

MacroNav wrote:In my opinion, creating places that aren't useful to 99.99% of users is a problem, in this scenario:

I'm an infrequent traveler, or I'm in a strange place. I'm running late to catch my flight, so I use Waze to get there as soon as possible. I type in "airport" into search, because who the heck knows which person it's named for, what municipality it's located in, or what indecipherable code letters it uses. Even though there is only one airport with scheduled flights within 100 miles, I see airports scattered all over the map and get pages of results from search within 50 miles. Maybe I select the right one, maybe not. Maybe I miss my flight, maybe not.


We map a lot of things that aren't useful to 99.9% of the users, RPP is one of them.

Based off that scenario, we should not map any airport that does not offer scheduled flights to prevent a possible wrong selection. If you don't know the name of the airport, how do you know that you selected the correct airport anyway. Maybe you selected the skydiving airport, so you still miss your flight.
If you are running late to catch your flight (should have set Waze to remind you when to leave :D ), which means you purchased a ticket to fly. Your ticket will tell you the airport you are supposed to go to.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Lone Star State, Hook 'em Horns
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1970 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby jm6087 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:33 am

Otto wrote:Did anyone here actually follow MacroNav's instructions in his second post in this thread?

MacroNav wrote:
Here's a couple "airports". Zoom out to 1 and pan around the map with GIS-L airports on. Have a look. Do you think all those dots should be airport area places?


I did not follow those actual instructions but a little later MacroNav gave 6 samples to look at and I did look at each one and respond.

Just because GIS-L shows an airport does not mean one should be created, the script is just a tool to aid mapping. The editor still needs to look at the actual map to decide if it should be mapped or not.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Lone Star State, Hook 'em Horns
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1970 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Wiki Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ehepner1977, Skulllzzcode