See: osm.org/changeset/141555869

My company uses OSM as one of the sources for drawing airport diagrams (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7sMxRg-JvM) and your proposal is very bad from this point of view.

I look at the problem from the point of view of aviation and land use, and you from the point of view of routing. You can tag the building rather than remove the official UN codes.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/airport-mapping-database-amdb

> Please provide source where is explicit explained to not divide airfields into two parts

Lol. You yourself wrote that the IATA code is identical. This is one airport that has mixed MIL/CIV uses and uses the same RWYs. But it is impossible to determine this geometrically in OSM. In fact, the airport diagrams in OSM are simply terrible. This is very worse than the AMDB standard. And your proposal to ignore the IATA code, which in fact exists, seems strange to me.

It's incorrect to divide the airfield into 2 parts (civilian and military). They use a common runway after all.

It's incorrect to divide the airfield into 2 parts (civilian and military). They use a common runway after all.

AMDB: https://vfr-demo-map.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ed-99-mapping-to-aixm_compress.pdf

These are different entities. Сlosed taxiways or runways are specially marked and can be used. You are proposing a poor scheme that is very far from AMDB standards.

Compare the quality of airport diagrams. AMDB (Europe + USA), OSM - other small airports - http://vfr-demo-map.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/map.html

знову зсунув з треків. чим так краще - незрозуміло

магія. історично будівлі за одним проектом (чого у нас повно, від Польщі до сільських хат срср) всі були накопійовані.

були паралельні однакові панельні будинки. нє, тре в черговий раз прийти все посовати і зробити їх різними

tclid=* like faa=* in the USA. It’s better to discuss this with the local community.

CEG4 is in no case a valid icao code. But there are a lot of such cases in OSM, so I don’t mind. Ok, you win.

https://www.icao.int/safety/OPS/OPS-Tools/Pages/location-indicator.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_airport_code

CEG4 contains number "4". Therefore this is not an ICAO code, but a pseudo ICAO. I'm not against using pseudo-ICAO as ICAO, but it would be better, of course, to separate these entities since there is no single standard in OSM. But the IATA code "CEG4" is absolutely wrong. I think you agree that it's impossible to book a ticket to this airport.

Do you have any aviation background? IATA [A-Z]{3}, ICAO [A-Z]{4} - these are the official UN rules. What is there to discuss if these are fake codes that are not in the AIP? Use loc_ref tag, this is correct.

I'm sorry, what? You are inventing some kind of nonsense:

https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/?airport.search=CEG4

Why are you copying local code into properties intended for IATA/ICAO?

I suspect you have no idea what ICAO and IATA are for. Thanks for such a useful revert. Ok. The region between Calgary and Edmonton is the only exception on the planet.

Ok. I see.

Ok. Thanks! Using your link I found almost 200 similar cases and corrected them

от навіщо совати треба було? там GPS-треки на дорозі є, ні тре прийти і все зсунути по кривому знімку в гористій місцевості