I may be wrong but I think ultimately Sketch was wanting Avis to start the name and not DEN.

I don't see why making them an AP should be an issue. I agree that if it has an FAA identifier then it should be mapped as an area. The only difference between the smaller ones mentioned and larger airports would be how mapped. I think the smaller ones should be just the "airport" itself, basically the airstrip itself.

juliansean wrote:I would like to see all the hangars and public parking spaces included in that AP. Give the biggest fingerprint we can for the app.

Sean

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.