Post Reply

Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Post by
The US Road Types are being overhauled and driveable roads are being discussed in detail here.

I propose that those who wish to engage in a lively discussion on guidance relating to Runways, Taxiways, and other features around airports such as airport parking lots, rental car facilities, taxi staging areas, etc. Some of these topics are covered in other areas such as Parking Lots and Private Roads, but I think Waze would benefit from standardization around airports. The more consistent Waze is around major travel hubs, the better the user experience will be. The product of these discussions could be used to enhance or complement existing wiki pages.

A couple examples to start:

Runways - Naming
I would recommend using the FAA identifier rather than the ICAO identifier for runway markings. I think if you try to standardize on ICAO (KXXX) you will just end up confusing the masses -- most people recognize the FAA identifier. Further, some airfields don't have an ICAO identifier but all airfields have an FAA identifier.
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".)
Change to: (e.g., "SMF Runway 16R-34L".)


Runways - Elevation
I would recommend setting the standard that all runways should be set to elevation = ground (0). In the rare instances where a road crosses under a runway's path, the road should deviate elevation to the negative. In the extremely rare case where a runway and a road intersect, no junction should be formed and the road should deviate elevation to the positive so it appears over the runway. This would make it easy to standardize on 0 for runway elevation, since the vast majority of runways never cross paths with a road.


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. Google Maps solves this by using a thinner, lighter line for taxiways. Waze should just omit them.


Restricted Access Roads
I would recommend that segments which require SIDA or other TSA, DHS, or airport authority credentials to access should not be mapped in Waze. Some may disagree - but until Waze offers some way to alert the user that their destination may be in a restricted area like google, navigon, garmin, and some others do - I don't think it is safe or prudent to even have the ability to possibly maybe route someone onto airport property.
I would concede that you could map the segments as long as they were never connected to the main driveable network (similar to railroads and walking paths), but we would need a way for WME Validator to flag that. Ideas?


Standardized Airport Feature Naming (Roads, Lots, Places, etc)
bgodette wrote:That discussion will likely lead to standardized naming of important navigational points that aren't normal Places, eg "SFO - Rental Return" "SFO - Cell Waiting" "DIA - Arrivals East" etc.
bgodette brought up a good point here - there could be value in standardizing the naming of some common features at major airports such as cell phone waiting lots, arrivals/departures access, rental car location, etc.

Post by dbraughlr
pumrum wrote:You mention FAA identifier but then listed an ICAO identifier. I would recommend using the FAA identifier rather than the ICAO identifier for runway markings. I think if you try to standardize on ICAO (KXXX) you will just end up confusing the masses -- most people recognize the FAA identifier. Further, some airfields don't have an ICAO identifier but all airfields have an FAA identifier.
ICAO and FAA identifiers are not necessarily different by the prefix K (there are airports in AK and HI too).
The identifier recognized most is the IATA identifier. How about using the IATA for airports which have have one and FAA identifier for the rest?
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Ѭ

Post by Daknife
I'm opposed to Runways, everytime someone adds a runway to one of my local airports I start seeing a big increase in GPS tracks matching flight paths. Simply if Waze has it people start using it. You don't need runways with or without proper designations as nobody is driving on them. When Waze adds a flight path option then add them and every minute detail a pilot could want. But until then they have no place in an app for ground transportation. The Airports are already marked with areas.

Just my biased opinion.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
Posts: 1683
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 230 times
https://waze.com/wiki/images/3/3c/Waze_ ... 00k_6c.png
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint

Post by dbraughlr
sketch wrote:Runways make an airport immediately identifiable as an airport.
Having the airport identifier in the runway name immediately identifies the airport.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
daknife wrote:You don't need runways with or without proper designations as nobody is driving on them. When Waze adds a flight path option then add them and every minute detail a pilot could want.
As with walking trails and railroads, I haven't seen a viable solution besides mapping them and locking them. The only way I found to win the war against walking trails was to lock them or disconnect them from the roadway. The same goes for runways, I think. If the runway is mapped and locked, then no one can attach it to a road or pave it during take-off or landing.

This is not for pilots or airport personnel.
Runways are a distinctive landmark. In theory, a safety feature could be built for Waze to warn about proximity to a mapped runway. Runways should be excluded from search results regardless of what they are named.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by Daknife
Areas over the runways/airports take care of the distinctive landmark aspect. Always have.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
Posts: 1683
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 230 times
https://waze.com/wiki/images/3/3c/Waze_ ... 00k_6c.png
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint

Post by dbraughlr
pumrum wrote:... assumes you would be near an airport, know enough to use it as a reference, but some how not know which one it is and have to look at the IATA identifier just to make sure you're not at the wrong airport ;)
Yes. I'm sure someone can give you examples of airports which are close to each other, although it shouldn't be too hard to find the airport area landmark label within which the runways fall.
And yes, this assumes that runways are shown in the app and are shown with a name when zoomed in.

I have been at places where there was a BGS with an airplane icon. I think, "Yes, but which airport?" because I have been close to an airport but not known which one.

For editing, I like the ID on the runways because I often have the Places layer turned off.
If runways start showing in the app with the names, then how they are named matters a lot more.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by Daknife
Large shaded area labeled airport signifies Airport far more than a straight line road that may or may not have some seemingly random numbers and letters does.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
Posts: 1683
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 230 times
https://waze.com/wiki/images/3/3c/Waze_ ... 00k_6c.png
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint

Post by AlanOfTheBerg
Naming standard of "LR" or "RL"? or lower number first always regardless of L or R? How about runways with no L-R?

Also, is there confirmation that runways, like walking trails, definitely DO NOT cause routing problems? Specifically, if a runway is closer to the google search result (because G is still the preferred POI provider) than any other segment, then Waze may try to route as close as it can to that runway.
AlanOfTheBerg
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 23624
Has thanked: 610 times
Been thanked: 3685 times
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | alanoftheberg@gmail.com
Oregon-based US Country Manager | iPhone6 - VZ

Post by AlanOfTheBerg
pumrum wrote:To supplement this, a non-driveable segment such as a runway should never be connected to the driveable segment network, so the routing engine would not be able to route you onto a runway - even if a landmark/place marker stop point was physically on top of the runway. it will route you to the nearest driveable segment
That's not the problem which some non-driveable segments will cause. It will, with walking trails, for example, see that a walking trail, not connected to any other segment, is closest to the lat/lon of the search result, and then will route you to the spot on the segment closest to that walking trail it can get.

In the quick sketch below, if you assume the Place target is a lat/lon returned by a google result, you would think that the actual destination would be the Parking lot segment because it is the closest reachable/connected segment to the target. But it won't be. The actual destination will be where the green spot is, because the closest segment to the lat/lon is the walking trail, and the closest Waze can route to the walking trail is to where the green spot is.
AlanOfTheBerg
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 23624
Has thanked: 610 times
Been thanked: 3685 times
Attachments
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | alanoftheberg@gmail.com
Oregon-based US Country Manager | iPhone6 - VZ

Post by AlanOfTheBerg
sketch wrote:
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:That's not the problem which some non-driveable segments will cause. It will, with walking trails, for example, see that a walking trail, not connected to any other segment, is closest to the lat/lon of the search result, and then will route you to the spot on the segment closest to that walking trail it can get.
Pretty sure that's only true of non-drivables which are currently visible in the client. Walking trails are displayed in the client; runways are not.
Very well could be the case. Just trying to make sure.
AlanOfTheBerg
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 23624
Has thanked: 610 times
Been thanked: 3685 times
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | alanoftheberg@gmail.com
Oregon-based US Country Manager | iPhone6 - VZ