openstreetmap
Suggest a proper tag for water runways
A little bit of explanation would have been nice for this PR. Was there a discussion behind this tag replacement proposal?
From a "raw usage numbers" point of view neither tagging schema is clearly favored over the other (75 vs. 110 features).
FWIW, there do also exist some (rare) water runways inside "land aerodrome"s, which at first glance seem to fit to the description of a aeroway=runway. Here are some examples: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658226025, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/387939245 or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/137990458.
FWIW, there do also exist some (rare) water runways inside "land aerodrome"s, which at first glance seem to fit to the description of a
aeroway=runway. Here are some examples: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658226025, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/387939245 or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/137990458.
These examples are very narrow seaplane landing areas. Most are more rotund. The only functional difference is that there’s less lateral maneuvering space on these ones. But even these more linear landing areas are physically just sets of buoys rather than a runway. (A landing area without buoys is just a pond.)
From a "raw usage numbers" point of view neither tagging schema is clearly favored over the other (75 vs. 110 features).
The long-documented premise of seamark:type=seaplane_landing_area is that any place where seaplanes take off and land should be tagged as seamarks rather than runways, and the aeroway=runway documentation corroborates it. I was unaware of any controversy over this tag specifically, just some occasionally mentioned discomfort with how the overall seamark tagging scheme seems to copy a nautical chart very literally.
Many laypeople think of seaplane landing areas as runways. In the past, there’s been a lot of back-and-forth between mappers who are more familiar with seaplanes and those who aren’t in places where seaplane bases are common. The raw usage numbers don’t allow us to conclude that neither is favored over the other, because it’s very likely that most uses of aeroway=runway surface=water were made without any awareness about what differentiates a seaplane landing area from a conventional runway. Meanwhile, renderer developers consider aeroway=runway surface=water to be troll-tagging.
To me, the most important thing would be to have a dedicated preset for seaplane landing areas, however they’re tagged. This is the only way to ensure that they’re mapped as areas rather than lines, to avoid losing important information about both dimensions.
Many laypeople think of seaplane landing areas as runways.
I guess this is pretty widespread, as wikipedia generally lists seaplane landing areas as "runways" and even the FAA does so (example 1, 2). :shrug:
The long-documented premise of
seamark:type=seaplane_landing_areais that any place where seaplanes take off and land should be tagged as seamarks rather than runways, and the aeroway=runway documentation corroborates it.
I cannot follow where you got the impression from that this is a question of tagging it as either a seamark or a runway. Considering that the seamark tag namespace is defined to be specifically for objects (and their attributes) which are relevant for nautical navigation, and the fact that seaplanes are by their hybrid nature are affecting and affected by both the nautical and aviation realm: Wouldn't a logical way to map the landing areas for seaplanes be to include tags from both tagging schemas: seamark:type=seaplane_landing_area in combination with aeroway=runway + surface=water and further tags like ref, etc.? Also note that [seamark:type=seaplane_landing_area](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:seamark:type%3Dseaplane_landing_area) also does not "forbid" it from being used together with an aeroway tag.
To me, the most important thing would be to have a dedicated preset for seaplane landing areas,
Definitely agree. :+1:
Btw, I've also seen the tag aeroway=water_runway (example) used for seaplane landing areas.