Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!
Post by dbraughlr
DwarfLord wrote:... the Road Types (USA) section still advises editors to name runways with the airport identifier (SJC, JFK, etc.) in the beginning. Didn't we decide that practice could result in undesired population of autocomplete lists with runways?
If that's true, that's a good reason not to use IATA for runways. But it's also something that should be fixed in the search; runways should be at the lowest precedence below the airport place.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Send a message

Post by dbraughlr
DwarfLord wrote:There seems no remaining controversy about removing the airport identifier from runway naming.
I liked them as landmarks for editing (with actual landmarks turned off) because runways are big and pretty obvious. Of course, I liked the ICAO identifier too.

So the idea that the "airport identifier" might mess up a search really holds no weight when the IATA ID is not used. There is no reason to use the IATA ID on runway. IATA is not about navigation or runways.
IATA is about booking tickets and routing people and cargo.

It seems strange that the proposal to name the runways was amended to put the IATA code at the highest precedence. Then it was killed because the IATA code was on the runways.

I move for reconsideration of the original proposal (essentially, strike IATA from the list of acceptable IDs).

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.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Send a message

Post by dmcrandall
krikketdoug wrote: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.
I've always set Runways to Ground.

Also, since they don't show up in the general road view on the app, there is no incentive to map the taxiways. And, it's a violation of Wiki standard.
dmcrandall
Country Manager
Country Manager
Posts: 471
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 192 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
Dropped by here looking for clarity because the wiki is currently inconsistent. It says to use the FAA identifier but then gives an example using the ICAO identifier ("KSMF"). I've been advising a local editor who enjoys marking runways to follow the example (ICAO) not the instruction (FAA).

My own take is that:
  • runways are very long and there is plenty of room for a 3 or 4-letter identifier without material increase in clutter;
  • the kind of editor who enjoys putting in runways will also enjoy including the identifier, so why not make them happy;
  • should the runways and their names be displayed at some point, the identifier makes them look that much more professional; and
  • regarding the choice of 3-letter FAA or 4-letter ICAO code, the ICAO code is more applicable worldwide, so using it not only looks high-falutin' but also sets an example of not diverging from worldwide standards without good cause.
All that being said, I really don't care a whole lot. I just want consistent wiki guidance :cry:
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
sketch wrote:...Although I don't know what "FAA code" is. The IATA three-letter code is the one familiar to consumers.
According to the Wikipedia article on airport identifiers the FAA code is nearly always the same as the IATA code, but there are exceptions.

Based on your response, and incorporating qwaletee's concept of a "soft standard" for cases like this where compliance is not that critical, I have changed the wiki language from this:
Previous Road Types (USA) wrote:Name each runway using the FAA airport identifier, the word ''runway'', and the runway designations with the lower number first (e.g., "KSMF Runway 16R-34L".)
to this:
Current Road Types (USA) 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 preferred airport identifier is the IATA 3-letter code, for example "SFO", "LAX", "JFK", etc. (the IATA code and FAA code are nearly always identical). The ICAO 4-letter code is also acceptable, especially if the airport does not have an assigned IATA identifier.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
OK, have adjusted the wiki further.

While it is fine to strive for consistency, it is frustrating to editors to have a wiki explicitly suggest an approach one day and then explicitly deprecate it the next. Especially when it really doesn't matter at present given that the information is not rendered in the client. If not done carefully this is a recipe for editor disengagement.

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.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
dbraughlr wrote:
DwarfLord wrote:
Current Road Types (USA) wrote:(the IATA code and FAA code are nearly always identical).
Unfortunately, that really is not accurate and doesn't add any clarity.

When the airport does not have an assigned IATA identifier, the ICAO 4-letter code is used, or absent that, the FAA identifier is used.
I am not an aviation expert and was just going off the Wikipedia entry. It says "In the United States, the IATA identifier usually equals the FAA identifier, but this is not always the case." Is that wrong?

This is a wiki for the US only. If every airport in the US has an FAA identifier, why bother with IATA or ICAO? Why not just say, use the FAA identifier? Wikipedia says it usually equals the IATA identifier but you say that's not accurate, so I don't know what to recommend for sure, but from a clarity perspective a wiki entry that just says "use the FAA identifier" would be nice and simple and would not force the editor into a decision tree.

But honestly I have no desire to argue for anything other than clarity and consistency in our wiki. Please feel free to change the entry to your heart's content, I would only ask that the result be self-consistent (unlike the previous entry on runway naming).
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
pumrum wrote:Taxiways
I would recommend providing guidance that airport taxiways should not be mapped. In many larger airports the taxiways can be quite complex, would appear the same size/color as runways, and would reduce the distinctive appearance of the runways being identified as runways.
A new editor has just added a pile of taxiways to SFO. I started to PM him, but realized that, despite pumrum's suggestion that opened this thread, the road-type wiki remains silent on taxiways.
sketch wrote:Our guidance says restricted roads inside the airport should not be mapped.
The guidance sketch refers to (I'm not sure where it's located) does not quite apply since these aren't exactly "restricted roads" but full-fledged taxiways. For when pilots need Waze to avoid traffic on the tarmac I suppose. Who needs ATC? :o

Nobody has objected to pumrum's suggestion above. Even a Waze editor who was enthusiastic about mapping airports couldn't support taxiways that are purely for use by aircraft (emphasis mine):
jdwaters wrote:Having the taxiways mapped is of slight navigational benefit for airport users. At general aviation airports it is somewhat common for street vehicles to drive on taxiways to reach hangars and aviation businesses (e.g. Saratoga Springs, where the parking lot for the two glider hangars is reachable only by driving on taxiways). Having the taxiways depicted on the map is helpful, but they certainly should not be connected to the road network so as to avoid directing unauthorized traffic onto taxiways. I don't think there is much navigational benefit while operating an aircraft; if you're at an airport large enough that you need a map of the taxiways, you should have a formal airport chart available.
So, I recommend we modify the Road types (USA) wiki as follows, addition in italics. Concur?
updated wiki suggestion wrote:Where a street also serves as a taxiway (such as in a community with through-the-fence access) map the street as a street. No drivable road should connect to or cross over any runway. A road may cross under a runway by ensuring the elevation is set below that of the runway segment. Despite its title, the Runway/Taxiway road type should never be used for airport taxiways. Taxiways not intended for common access by street vehicles should not be mapped at all with any road type.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
OK, I have modified the Runway/Taxiway wiki description to prohibit using the Runway/Taxiway road type for taxiways.

I took the liberty of wordsmithing this section (except for the paragraph on naming, which was in very good shape already), but with no change in content aside from the taxiway clarity.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
FYI I just added this sentence to the "naming" paragraph, as I realized the guidance was silent on the "City" field and I've run across a couple of well-meaning editors who entered the IATA or spelled-out airfield name for the City:
Slight mod to wiki wrote:For the "City" field of runway segments, check "None" to avoid any chance of city smudging.
Regarding taxiways, the argument that mapping them using the Runway/Taxiway type would lead to display confusion -- since runways and taxiways would render identically -- is what persuaded me that it's a bad idea for now.

And besides, there is the extra editor burden in policing the stuff. Another editor has already deleted those taxiways at SFO that I mentioned earlier, but I should have taken a screenshot. It was like mapping every lane in the parking lot, except for aircraft. Nearly every gate at Terminal 3 had its own lane. Rather than try to guide and mentor and encourage editors to do taxiways correctly I feel editor time is better spent saying "please don't map taxiways that are only for aircraft -- see the wiki here" and having done with :mrgreen:

There is an alternate approach you can see at the Santa Barbara airport. Used the "Airport" place area to delineate the boundaries of the taxiways instead of the complete airport property. Totally violates our style guidelines but I guess nobody's had the heart to turn it into one big blob. :P
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message