Hi What should we do with airports based on this site ourairports.com ? Theyre maps are based on Google ? I have search for traces for some of them but no sight on Bing. Erase them since there import is based on it ?

asked 09 Jul '16, 21:25

Hendrikklaas's gravatar image

Hendrikklaas
9.3k198236384
accept rate: 5%

What maps they use is irrelevant, IMHO. There was an import based on their data recently? According to the wiki, this was imported in 2010: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue#One-Time_Imports

Perhaps the data became outdated?

(11 Jul '16, 09:05) Piskvor
2

Can you show an example?

(11 Jul '16, 09:07) scai ♦
1

The following areas ; http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/42.8672/1.1316 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/42.88829/0.49839 are marked airfield or airoway, both areas leave no sign of it on the ground's surface. Ive also asked the mapper who has contributed another airfield, http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/42.7937/0.4583 If he made a survey, but no reaction yet. On all spots there’s no sign of anything or traces of any facility on the surface. And above all the places don’t look ideal for an airfield at all, slopes and trees nearby or only used during wintertime, but there’s no mentioning of it. A helicopter could land there anytime, but no mentioning of it either. Could the trick be hidden in the name Altisurface de Pene de Soulit.

(11 Jul '16, 22:03) Hendrikklaas

A link to the exact element in question would be nice. Here is one for "Altisurface de Ferrère Batmale". ourairports.com doesn't have much more information available. Yet FR-0269 also appears on multiple other sites, for example pilotspace.eu and vrfpilots.com. So it seems to exist. If there is a slope then maybe this "airport" is just for starting of very light aircraft or maybe even just for para gliders? In the latter case the tagging would be wrong of course.

I didn't look through the other airports added by this user.

(12 Jul '16, 08:15) scai ♦
1

In my experience, the issue with the data imported from ourariports.com is that the import lumped airports together with just runways without airport facilities (sometime even private runways) and tagged everything as an airport.

(12 Jul '16, 10:42) carciofo

To address piskvor's comment above first, what map they use is very relevant. In the case of http://ourairports.com/ the credits page lists both Wikipedia and Google Maps. Wikipedia's licence is strictly speaking incompatible with OSM (though it probably wasn't at the time of the ourairports.com import) and Google is off-limits too.

If you see an airport in OSM that doesn't exist on the ground, I'd delete it. "Dodgy airports" is something that I look for if I'm visiting a new area, and if it's clear that what should be a grass strip is actually a cornfield, I'll delete it.

Whether a redaction of this changeset and the others is needed is probably something that we need to discuss. In some cases airports added initially from ourairports.com will have been comprehensively remapped from survey, and so shouldn't obviously be deleted (e.g. Gamston). Another complication here is that the import looks like it was a bit of a mess - duplicates were imported and then deleted, and "things that are not airfields" such as "places where planes could land in an emergency" such as node 1042037271 were also imported.

permanent link

answered 12 Jul '16, 12:19

SomeoneElse's gravatar image

SomeoneElse ♦
36.0k71366854
accept rate: 16%

1

What I meant was "what map background they use for displaying their data is irrelevant" - however, if their data was (even partially) created from Google data, then I agree that it would not be license-compatible with OSM. Also, it's not clear from the imports page or the credits page if it was using incompatible data in 2010, or if that happened later: if the licenses were compatible then (Wikipedia), but later diverged, or if Google data was added since the import, that IMHO means we can't merge their new data, but doesn't retroactively invalidate previous license.

(12 Jul '16, 12:43) Piskvor
1

Scai, "Yet FR-0269 also appears on multiple other sites," IMHO thats not a correct way to look, if they copy and past among eachother the wrong or false data gets more and more confirming sites.

(12 Jul '16, 16:20) Hendrikklaas
1

@hendrikklaas , citogenesis:

https://xkcd.com/978/

Wikipedia, the usual culprit, of course has a list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents

:)

(12 Jul '16, 16:35) SomeoneElse ♦

I did not know someone made a word for electronic copy fraude, it stands just for what I meant, but it could be without false intentions.

(12 Jul '16, 17:11) Hendrikklaas
Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×4
×2
×1

question asked: 09 Jul '16, 21:25

question was seen: 1,968 times

last updated: 12 Jul '16, 17:11

powered by OSQA