Forum:Global and regional issues/The two systems of airport codes
Since we're starting afresh with the new wiki, one of the things I would like to bring up is the two systems of airport codes that we have (WAAT and ANACA). I understand that in the real world we have IATA and ICAO that both have listings of codes (not to mention internal codes used in larger jurisdictions like France, Russia, and the US). Looking at the history of how these codes developed, my feeling is that it happened more through bureaucratic means with a small intent to create regional divisions. My feeling is that, for much of what we do, the systems are basically redundant. Yes, I recognize that their usages in the real world are slightly distinct, but this is only because organizations have kept them that way. They didn't have to evolve into distinct entities.
Do we really need to copy the real-world parallel here? I'm open to ideas as to why we could or should, but I'm wondering if a four-letter system based on regionality (as an example) might have developed naturally early on. The three-letter code grants us over 17,000 options globally; doing a four-letter code grants those 17,000 options for each region. This means we're unlikely to run out anytime soon on either system.
Thus, my proposal is two-fold: if there is a desire for a regionally-oriented airport code, then we should default to the four-letter code altogether; if there is not, then we default to the three-letter code. I personally don't care which way we go, but I don't believe it is necessary to have two systems in place.
Thanks, everyone for your feedback! If there's a consensus starting to form below, we'll proceed accordingly. — Alessa (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
UPDATE (27 December 2021): The community has voted to use three-letter codes for commercial airports. This does not affect general aviation airports, military airports, or any further decisions about integration with rail or other modes of transport. (The previous discussion is logged on the talk page.)
Continuing discussion
I would like to continue the discussion about how we should handle airport codes but break them up into two larger conversations. — Alessa (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
General aviation and other airports
One idea that has come about was to use some type of designator with numerals to mark general aviation airports (e.g. 2GK). I wonder how much we would need to micromanage GA airports in general. I can't imagine a 2GK code in the eastern FSA impacting even a potential 2GK being used in Mecyna. General aviation airports generally don't have the range that other airfields. Thoughts? — Alessa (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a country-by-country system? So - Mecyna and the FSA could both have codes that are the same, but there couldn't be two airports in Mecyna with the same code. I like designating them with numerals, though. Alternatively, a letter prefix like G could be an option (G-GK) --Lithium-Ion (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Multimodal integration
Let's also continue the discussion about integration with other modes of transport, such as using the previous suggested XLCX for HSR access at LCX. Thoughts? — Alessa (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- I guess my first question to start off is: is the main purpose of this integrated code for passengers, or for logistics? That might affect how I think about it (in the earlier discussion I'd suggested having it be a trailing letter instead of a leading letter if it was primarily for passengers, though now that I think about it a leading letter probably is fine if X is always the leading letter for connections and is never used otherwise) --Ernestpkirby (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- The system should be a parallel to the aviation system, with station codes used to identify train stations that offer international service, or that somehow link up to the international aviation system. Since that definition can get quite broad (e.g., every FSA passenger rail station would qualify as long as a single station has transfers to an airport), it makes sense to use four-letter codes since we’d need the capacity. That said, since you can’t take a train from Archanta to Antarephia, there’d be more tolerance for duplicating codes internationally. Once again I’d say that the precise format should be up to the individual nations with some loose rule about duplicate codes (maybe codes can only be reused if the stations aren’t within 4000km of each other or some other qualifier to ensure they can’t be confused), but I stand by the idea that combined airport/railway stations should have an international standard of “X***” with “X” denoting a transfer station and “***” as the three-letter code, and with no other stations permitted to have a leading letter of X. A reserved leading letter is more logical than a trailing letter given computerization and being able to quickly identify transfer stations. —TheMayor (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)