Talk:Tag:airmark=beacon
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Should we write the values in large or small letters? Example: beacon:type=VOR (73x), beacon:type=vor (83).
See [1]
People in aviation would always write it large. In OSM there is usually everything to write small. --geozeisig (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I like the values in upper case. Chrabros (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- VOR is an abréviation, and should therefor be upper case --Skippern (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Split the beacon:type=ILS tag
The glideslope and localizer parts of an ILS are geographically separated and should be mapped separately. It seems to me no consensus can be gleaned from TagInfo.
I also think emphasising that these need to be associated with a particular runway (or, specifically, a runway threshold) is important. --Jaearly (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Glideslope and localizer are parts of an ILS. So we should tag them with beacon:type=ILS. There could be an addition tag as eg glideslope=yes or localizer=yes.
- But let us remember we are OSM. --geozeisig (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest we use a relation to tie ILS localizer and glideslope installations to a particular runway threshold, using a relation type of "airmark" with roles "localizer", "glideslope", "threshold", and if necessary, "marker".
- As an example, I crafted these relations, 7779955 and 7779956, to show my idea of how ILS installations could be recorded in OSM. The airport I used for this is the nearest major airport to where I live, CFB Comox. This is just experimental, and should not be used for other airports right at this point. -- DENelson83 (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
beacon:type=OM