4 ms·

I am a pilot, and I compared the FAA diagram of SFO that you pointed out with the openairportmap.org one. Looking at the map itself: * Taxiway labels aren't v

I am a pilot, and I compared the FAA diagram of SFO that you pointed out with the openairportmap.org one. Looking at the map itself: * Taxiway labels aren't very readable, and I need to zoom in quite a bit for them to even be consistently displayed. * For that matter, the yellow lines seem to cover a lot of things that aren't taxiways, and seem to extend into non-movement areas (areas outside the purview of ground control/tower), and for that reason, they make the actual taxyways harder to see. * The runways are labled in a way that requires consulting the compass rose to interpret - "10L/28R". "10L/28R" is the name for that strip of tarmac, but when you're landing with a heading of 284º, it's called "28R" and when you're landing the other way, it's called "10L". Compare that with the FAA diagram, which labels them clearly at the landing side of the runway, the same way the numbers are painted on the ground. * The openairportmap diagram lacks runway length and width. * OpenAirportMap lacks the location of the displaced thresholds on the 28 and 1 runways. * OpenAirportMap lacks the location of the runaway airplane catchers (EMAS) at the ends of the 1/19 runways. * OpenAirportMap lacks any field elevation information * OpenAirportMap doesn't have an indication of north, or of the magnetic variance. * SFO doesn't have a VOR on-field, but if it did, it's location would be printed on FAA map, but not openairport * The FAA map has the ATIS (weather), Tower, Ground Control, and Approach Control frequencies listed on it. Overall, I would say the openairport map is not useful to a pilot. Which I think goes to the GP's point: "what is the goal of this map?" It's not to help a pilot.

jjwiseman 4y ago
This obviously isn't for pilots (as a pilot you don't want to use information that anyone can edit at anytime). It's just a different way of highlighting lots of airport-related information that is available in OpenStreetMap, which is a cool thing to do.
ericpauley 4y ago
Clearly nobody is going to cancel their Foreflight subscription for this. But the point is that the map is short on aesthetic details because its goal is to allow visualization of a complex dataset, namely airport surface features.
pastage 4y ago
Your objections can be split in three parts. First, "this is not for pilots", it probably can be. Second, the layout/design is not helpful, seems to be mostly nit picking (which is good). Third, the data is wrong. The data can be corrected on http://osm.org http://osm.org by anyone, so that means your first objection is true. The design and layout can of course be corrected over time, depending on how many people care about mapping/visualizing them. The question is can you land an airplane with this map, this will be tested in flight sims that will use the same data. So I do not know the goal of this map, but I have entered data about airports in to Openstreetmap and I most certainly did not do it for pilots. This was ten years ago I see that the amount of data has grown incredibly, So there must be people that care about it. That makes me believe that all your objections will be solved. Except the first one I listed since we can't have an fully loaded passenger plane land based upon my data.

jjwiseman 4y ago

This obviously isn't for pilots (as a pilot you don't want to use information that anyone can edit at anytime). It's just a different way of highlighting lots of airport-related information that is available in OpenStreetMap, which is a cool thing to do.

ericpauley 4y ago

Clearly nobody is going to cancel their Foreflight subscription for this. But the point is that the map is short on aesthetic details because its goal is to allow visualization of a complex dataset, namely airport surface features.

pastage 4y ago

Your objections can be split in three parts. First, "this is not for pilots", it probably can be. Second, the layout/design is not helpful, seems to be mostly nit picking (which is good). Third, the data is wrong. The data can be corrected on http://osm.org http://osm.org by anyone, so that means your first objection is true. The design and layout can of course be corrected over time, depending on how many people care about mapping/visualizing them. The question is can you land an airplane with this map, this will be tested in flight sims that will use the same data. So I do not know the goal of this map, but I have entered data about airports in to Openstreetmap and I most certainly did not do it for pilots. This was ten years ago I see that the amount of data has grown incredibly, So there must be people that care about it. That makes me believe that all your objections will be solved. Except the first one I listed since we can't have an fully loaded passenger plane land based upon my data.