Index talk:Airports

Unfortunately, removing the ANACA codes makes it very difficult to find direct neighbors, which should be responsible for 85 % of the flights. Here are some overpass links to check the intl. references of airports

• airports with ICAO code
• airports with IATA code
• airports without IATA/ICAO code
• runways with missing reference --Mstr (talk) (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Consolidating references to only use the 3-letter code was decided upon about a year ago in this forum thread. –TheMayor (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.--Mstr (talk) (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a list of all airports with their airport codes--Mstr (talk) (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
---list deleted---

This list doesn’t include airports that don’t have the 4-character code, which is no longer necessary. Additionally, I think there’s value in having a more curated list to filter out non-canon areas and the plethora of airports in blue territories that shouldn’t be considered part of the global aviation network. -TheMayor (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Overpass can be very powerful, but as a blanket for things like this, it creates a lot of noise of things either non-canon or of dubious canonicity. We already push the limits a bit more with the territorial index pages, but those require nonstandard, OGF-specific tags to appear. — Alessa _(talk) 04:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now it shows all "IATA"-codes... it's rather a tool to look up all existing codes (where they are and how they are mapped)--Mstr (talk) (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Data Reformatting

I was wondering if I could re-format and add a column for Index:Airports.

Primary City:

• A slash (/) separator for multiple Primary cities
• Full names for states

Airport Name:

• English Name (Native name/s) or just Native Name if English isn't provided

Runway orientation and length:

• A diesis (‡) to provide comments about that particular runway

(New column) Time:

• UTC Time for that airport
• Time UTC+XX:00 (optional DST: UTC+XX:00)

I can fix these upon permission.

Thanks --Joebro (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to incorporate the data (runways, ...) directly from the map (overpass)? An additional column to indicate the region/continent would also be helpful. In the past the ANACA-code has served for this purpose.--Mstr (talk) (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joebro: I love the idea of time zones being put in there. It has actually been my preference to eliminate a column in the long run. I'd be curious if you have thoughts on collapsing that. Also, what do you mean by comments about a runway? Here's a thought: would you be willing to mock up what it would look like here on the talk page with just two or three entries that covers these changes? I'm absolutely open to seeing what you come up with.

@mstr: Having selected data like this from Overpass is a challenge, since it would have to merge with existing data. As I mentioned above, a list of airports strictly from Overpass creates a fair amount of useless noise/clutter. As for continent/region, I'm open to having something indicate that. Let's see what Joebro does with his proposed list first, because I very much don't want to add more than one other column.

— Alessa _(talk) 05:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alessa I'm not sure this would work with Joebro's way of retrieving the data but one way you could probably remove a column without losing information would be to set up the table where the types are separated by collapsable headings of type (global, regional, domestic). Not sure exactly what that would look like though--Ernestpkirby (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We probably can remove "number of gates" as a column. There are plenty of circumstances where the number of gates isn't really indicative of an airport's size or capacity (e.g., an airport that has many stands for regional planes could have more gates than a more major airport that handles larger international flights). --TheMayor (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

While a fair point, I don't really know that removing number of gates because of them not always being indicative of size or capacity fully makes sense because the number and length of runways also isn't always indicative of size or capacity. London-Heathrow with 2 runways handles only a few million less passengers than O'Hare with 7 runways; Kinston Regional Jetport in southeast NC has a longer runway than Charlotte-Douglas and Raleigh-Durham and no commercial flights at all today. Maybe there's a way to consolidate the set?--Ernestpkirby (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Length of runway has a direct impact on the size of aircraft that can use the airport. If we do need to eliminate a column, number of gates would have the least impact. —TheMayor (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hm, fair point. I wasn't thinking as much about the length as indicative of plane size capacity, that makes sense. The only other point I would make for the gates is I feel like it is sort of the piece that passively helps encourage people to only add airports mapped to a certain level of detail. Most of the information is easy to generate without much mapping, and it's fairly easy to plop down and label some runways (this is not an argument against the runway column, your point is valid) but having gates feels like it has that step of "hey, is your airport mapped to enough detail to give a number for this? No? Then come back when it is." At least I know I stopped and went back to add more detail when first adding airports because of that hurdle. But maybe that was just me, I guess nothing is stopping someone from making up a number...--Ernestpkirby (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alessa: Generally, the data formatting on the table is pretty much correct - I just wanted to point out some small fixes because a couple of nations' airports have very small differences (i.e. space between the number and metres, usage of line break elements, italics...) and to be honest, it's not really a big deal. It's just that i'm looking for a way to extract data in a cleaner fashion without affecting the readability of the wiki table, which is why I defined a couple of enforced rules from my previous comment.

In the table below, here are just some of these rules applied to already existing entries:

Country	Primary City	Airport Name	Code	Type	Gates (total)	Runway orientation and length	Time	Location
Gobrassanya Alora	Gallaton, Tenata/Quesagnais, Grand Lake District	Grand Lakes International Airport	GLI	R	94	3R/21L (3050m) 3C/21C (3050m) 3L/21R (3000m)	UTC+05:00	20.9919°N, 83.9022°E
Gobrassanya	Puerto Geo, Arrowic District	Puerto Geo - Arrowic International Airport	GEO	R	59	11-29 (4240m) 11W-29W (1100m) ‡Seaplane Landing Zone	UTC+05:00	19.2937°N, 86.043°E
Geklinia-Dregolesia	Mižričkavs'k/Dobrzanka/Chashavinsk	Geklinia-Dregolesia International Airport (Міжнародний Аеропорт Жеклінія-Дреголесія/Міэѕинародови Порт Лотнічи Жеклініа-Дреголезја)	GD	G	70	8/26 (3200m) 3L/21R (3820m) 3R/21L (3480m)	UTC+05:00	56.5701°N, 77.1621°E

@TheMayor does make a good point about removing gates as a column, but alternatively, if you wanted to give more value to the data, you could define an array of terminals, with each terminal having its respective gates.

--Joebro (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me and highlighting what you're planning to do. Apologies for not getting back to you quickly. Holidays, illness, and family matters made me forget about replying.

I think we should remove gates for now; few are mapped to that level, and it really isn't lost data at this point (can be restored in another way from the history or whatnot). So, feel free to add the timezones, remove gates, tweak any other formatting, etc. On a related note, if this were powered by Overpass instead of manually editing the wiki, would that interfere with how the data is gathered? There is a standardized tagging scheme that exists that we can pull from to ensure the data goes into the right place. — Alessa _(talk) 02:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)