Sorry but we really do not want nameless aerodromes.
OSM's position on names is covered in the wiki here - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only .
Thank you for chiming in, critically yet politely.
I must admit that the "we" is a bit of "pluralis majestatis" - it really is my own personal opinion. Yet it is an opinion grown over the years, and over ample discussion.
1) aerodromes should really not be nameless. There have been cases of foreign pilots getting an indication of "hey there's an airfield there, right where I need an intermediate stop" and plops they fly in and land, whether it be private or military or whatever. Lack of information on the map is their invariable excuse, even if it is a very poor excuse.
2) fellow mapper @jhart seems very concerned to point out the private character of this particular aerodrome, and I am fully willing to support that.
3) I agree with the wiki page you referred to that, if an official name is given, that is what we should use. However I am not aware of any such, in this case. The one official source of information regarding aerodromes is called the AIP, I did check the Danish AIP but to no avail.
99) Facit: blank name = no good, official name = not given, private character important, so I tagged "name=Slagelse private airstrip"
Suggestions and discussion welcome!
There already is an access=private tag. It is up to the data user to interpret and display the appropriate tags so that the end user (the pilot in your example) has the correct information.
Frankly I do not agree with your story of a qualified pilot finding a random airstrip in OSM and deciding to land there without doing any form of preparation. That would not just be bad airmanship, but gross negligence. But again, it is entirely up to the data users to interpret the available data correctly, we (data contributors) should not be making incorrect adjustments to data with the purpose of having data interpreted in a special way.
@JKHougaard: you are entirely right, we cannot be considered responsible for the interpretation of the data we present. Still, is that a sufficient reason to NOT give this particular field a "name=" tag? There are hundres of little airfields around Europe that are not in any official source of information, yet they all have a name. Yes, all of them, I run scripts to check on that. In Portugal, in Estonia, in Kosovo, everywhere. Why should this one Danish airstrip be an exception?
My opinion is: Mappers inventing names is BAD. Airfields and other objects in OSM should be tagged with verifiable official names only. Anything else will eventually lead to confusion.
Maps used by aviators should display the content of access tags.
@hjart: first of all my apologies for misspelling your id higher up. That said: surely an official name is to be preferred, but if there is none than it is better to do our best than to offer nothing at all. What name is given can be discussed, and edited, asnd changed, and changed again, but no name at all is the worst there can be. And again: why sould, of all the 7000 or so aerodromes in Europe, this airstrip be the only one to NOT have a name=* tag? I am beginning to wonder if there is a hush-up going on - is this where the queen's mistress lives, or so? :)
I also think it's now time to remove "invented name" from other airstrips. I think you'll have to come up with better cope with nameless airstrips.
No name is not bad and certainly not "the worst there can be".
Not respecting access=private tags etc is worse.
There you are mixing up two points. On the one hand I am glad to agree that tags like "private=*" are very important, and should be respected. On the other hand I insist we cannot be TOO clear; so we should use all means available, and the "name=" is one and a very prominent one. Refusing to use it is to be willingly blind .
And what do you mean with "better cope with nameless airstrips"?
I meant "you'll have to find better ways to cope with nameless airstrips". Inventing names for them is not good and will not prevent cases like the one you gave above.
I personally think a lot of people will disagree with adding "private" or "public", whatever to names of all aerodromes just to "clear" the way you describe.
Sorry, I really cannot agree. Are you really meaning to say that "name=" should only be tagged if an official source is given? If so, how do you define "official"? For an extreme example, what was the official source for the "name=" in node 2318851468 ? Are you really going to remove that information? It seems useful to me, and fully agreeing with the spirit and purpose of openstreetmap.
Yes, I think that "name=" should be tagged only if the airstrip has an actual official name. I researched this airstrip and found that it's private and doesn't actually have an official name. I think inventing one is wrong.
The node you mention can be verified by going to http://vscs.dk/butikker/ and checking for the name of the shop.
Again sorry, but you do nothing to convince me. There is nothing official about the source you mention. That this name has been invented by someone else does not make a difference, it is not an official name so it is an invented name - if I follow your reasoning.
But you may find me an official source for the name=* tag in node 1948279440 if you prefer ;)
In short: I refuse to accept that the name=* tag needs to be backed up by an official source, and it seems more than obvious to me that there is a zillion examples to support that. And again, even if an official source is required, then please define "official".
And again and again: WHAT is being hushed up??? Why are you so radically against giving a name, even if it is not "official"? Back to Stalinism, or what?
And may I also refer to the pointer by @SomeoneElse at the very beginning of this discussion: I could find nothing there to imply that only "official" names can be used. But the article seems to care little about aerodromes.
Nothing is being "hushed up" here. You invented this name even though you are not the owner or in any anyway affiliated with this particular airstrip, right? Just like you invented names for a gazillion other airstrips around the map?
Please note that another mapper (apparently with more insight in danish airfields than me) has already removed the name you invented here.
What has "being the owner" to do here? Has only the owner the right to add a "name=*" tag?
The arguments are becoming more and more remote, there must really be something dark behind it all. Why not call an apple an apple? Why not call an Airstrip in Slagelse an Airstrip in Slagelse?
@jan the link given by SomeoneElse says "If something really doesn't have a name, don't add a name to OpenStreetMap"
This airstrip doesn't actually have a name, so don't add one.
You are only saying it does not have an "official" name. Again, a dog is a dog and a train is a train and an Airstrip in Stragelse is an Airstrip in Stragelse. Allow me to insist: what is so very wrong about giving this one airstrip a name, even if it is not offical? Your insistence - against many thousand other aerodromes in Europe and beyond - is SO suspect! There really must be more to this! I think I am going to find out about requesting arbitration from "the powers that be" - this is not normal.
Another mapper removed the name you invented for this airstrip (because of lack of verifiability) and I've put the noname=yes tag back. Please respect it
(apologies for the typo - s/Stragelse/Slagelse/g)
Sorry, I won't - but I will not enter a reversal war either.
@jan_olieslagers Any name for an object must be verifiable by other mappers - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability for details. Something that you made up isn't a name, it's just a description.
Thanks again, @SomeoneElse. Can it be verified that an apple is an apple? Can it be verified that an Airstrip in Slagelse is an Airstrip in Slagelse? May an apple be given the name "apple" May ... ??
@jan, Please see https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/62884/inventing-names-for-essentially-unnamed-private-airstrips
My Opinion: Any Airstrip to be "legal" needs some kind of approval by the Aeronautical Authorities; and that Authority publish the location of each one of those airstrips, with certain characterists like longines and orientation of the airstrip. Name is NOT mandatory, but lenght, orientation and surface usually is; so based in that official data (Published in the Airmans Information Publication (AIP) of each country) the airstrip should be named. Please remenber as well that OSM data is NOT LEGAL for aeronautical use; so pilots will ever require a source of approved air data published in the form of maps in hard copy or electronic charts base in approved and valid Air Data...
Thanks, @JJIglesias. I have resigned to the existence of aerodromes with no name, though it feels to me like "a pub with no beer" :) And I certainly agree that we are NOT producing the AIP or any other official kind of data. However I cannot agree with you that all aerodromes (in the broadest sense of the word) need to be in the AIP or in any other official document: some countries require this, my own BE for example, but others do not. France and Italy are notorious examples for _not_ requiring ultralight fields to be in the AIP. In Italy they are called "campo di volo" and there are quite a lot of them. I think Spain and Portugal have no such requirement, either.
And by the way, length and orientation and a few more are properties of runways, not of aerodromes. Also, you are right that (in most countries) there is a legal requirement for pilots to use "appropriate" data, but not all countries define that "appropriate". Ask me how I know! :)
Karel ADAMS, flying the OO-G86
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by UCL, Fastly, Bytemark Hosting, and other partners.