aeroway=launchpad isn't rendered

[coffeepotprotocol]

Expected behavior

Launchpads should be shown on the map (ID editor), see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dlaunchpad

Actual behavior

People often add building=yes, landuse=industrial or similar to make them visible, similar for towers which aren't just a point. There's no clear definition in the wiki about the general handling of such objects, therefore sometimes also area=yes (and maybe more). If nothing is added, this also leads to double entries https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10752667574

Screenshots with links illustrating the problem

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/777859500
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13041854
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13028847

[coffeepotprotocol]

Useless discussions could also be avoided this way

(A building with a height of 20m is clearly not a "highway" https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13041854)

[imagico]

I have looked at the use of the tag a bit and does not look very good.

The tag is used to tag things at various locations where objects are (or historically were) launched into space. It is, however, a fairly arbitrary selection of such locations.

Where applied to polygons (2/3 of uses) it is in parts applied to compact engineering structures of small sizes (the design, shape and function of which differs) but also widely used as a landuse tag to delineate larger facilities (and the term facility is used also on the wiki). Sometimes both uses occur in combination, leading to nested polygon arrangements.

Structures in present day use and historic artefacts equally seem to be characterized with this tag. Same applies for structures that are part of military installations and such that are part of civilian facilities - while there is a separate tag military=launchpad with similar use volume for the former.

Based on that i don't think this is suitable for rendering in OSM-Carto at the moment.

If there is tagging developing and gaining use by mappers to map landuse for space launch operations then we could consider rendering this like landuse=industrial. If there is tagging developing and being consistently used by mappers to map fixed engineering structures facilitating launch of objects into space then we could consider depicting that as part of a more general effort to depict non-building engineering structures.

But in contrast to other aeroway=* features that we render at least partly because of their use value for the map user for flying with an airplane/helicopter, any such rendering would aim to depict the features in question as landmarks or sights rather than objects with a use value for the map user.

[coffeepotprotocol]

Didn't get your point. What's the difference to a helipad in general ? (There may also be "historical" helipads or such on the top of a roof etc.). Is it of any relevance what shape it's got, round or not ? The "use value" is described above, making mappers able to see them when mapping. Other uses are i.e. in OsmAnd. Don't think many mappers own or frequently use a helicopter.

[pnorman]

But in contrast to other aeroway=* features that we render at least partly because of their use value for the map user for flying with an airplane/helicopter, any such rendering would aim to depict the features in question as landmarks or sights rather than objects with a use value for the map user.

I've always found the value of other aeroway features is at least as much for orientation as anything else - I've only flown out of one airport around here, but have seen dozens on the map which are very obvious when standing anywhere near them.

[HolgerJeromin]

Ref #3112 for related aeroway=landingpad discussion

[imagico]

I've always found the value of other aeroway features is at least as much for orientation as anything else - I've only flown out of one airport around here, but have seen dozens on the map which are very obvious when standing anywhere near them.

And that is fully to be expected, in fact that is one of the key characteristics of general purpose maps - that they provide a wealth of information that is directly functionally relevant to some map users while only serving as context for orientation for other users.

Also keep in mind that the relevance of air transport infrastructure for peoples' everyday life varies a lot between different parts of the world. With that in mind i would say that i see our depiction of those features at least as much for their functional significance for the map user as for orientation and context. And i think this is probably similar for mapping - the incentive to map airports in detail largely stems from mappers actually using those for transportation.

But i like to emphasize again that this is not why i suggest not to render aeroway=launchpad at this time - this was a comment for context on the ideas on how we might approach depicting spaceflight infrastructure in the style if suitable tagging is sufficiently well developed and established in OSM.

[coffeepotprotocol]

"Closed ways are assumed to be areas in most other situations, including: aeroway=*" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area, which would include https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/aeroway=launchpad, so why isn't it rendered ?

[imagico]

aeroway=launchpad is not rendered because we have not decided to render it. This is independent of if it is tagged on a node, linear way, closed way or multipolygon relation.