How should i map jet bridges at airports?

Help and support
1

I was told I needed to ask for help on this forum so I am requesting it here

2

For a bit more background information here, jetbridge-guy, has started an undiscussed, apparent worldwide campaign ( Changesets by jetbridge guy | OpenStreetMap ) to change the permanent, fixed structure of all airbridges / jetbridges to be bridges only: e.g.

When questioned, they replied that they were doing this as all airports in OSM are mapped this way: Changeset: 175986015 | OpenStreetMap , but I advised that no, they aren’t!

It was also pointed out to them on that CS that they are mapping effectively mobile objects, as their configuration changes day by day.

Personally, I think that the permanent part of these bridges should continue to be mapped as part of the actual terminal building, with a generic “bridge” extending from that, but without trying to position them according to that particular set of imagery, so I asked them to discuss how they should be mapped.

All input welcome, both for & against!

Thanks

Graeme Fitzpatrick

OSMF Data Working Group

3 Likes
3

I would phrase it a bit differently:

  • part that is a building should be mapped as a building
  • mobile parts are not mappable
  • less sure: non-building fixed parts (if any) would be mappable as footways, maybe footways bridges
1 Like
4

I would think many of them are mapped in the position they were when the aerial image was taken. I would think that’s ok. At least there is a description available in the wiki. They are usually somehow in that position. It’s not like a actual moving object like a food truck.

As well there a quite long static jet bridges out there and I would consider them not as a building. Like a typical bus stop shelter is not considered a building as well in OSM.

1 Like
5

Interesting, I encountered a different (now deleted[1]) account doing something similar to an airport I have used several times. As part of the deleted account’s efforts they had deleted most of the indoor mapping for the airport in question. All the other recent changests they had appeared to be where they’d “updated jetways”.

We could really do with a way of designating areas swept by moving objects and positional representations. There are many places where we have things that move with a constrained area e.g:

  • container cranes that can be anywhere along their rails,
  • swing bridges with known open and closed locations and areas in between where you really couldn’t moor a sailboat without it getting knocked over
  • jet bridges
  • gangways at certain cruise terminals
  • large lock gates and tidal barriers

I can imagine detailed maps of an area might want to show the whole area with a dashed outline for some or all of these. Maybe a new relation type?

sketch of a relation scheme

A relation with type=articulated_structure

Roles:

  • typical : a common position for the object, should be where it “normally” is if it has a normal position. The elements themselves should be mapped as normal for the type of object they are
  • stowed position (when different to typical)
  • deployed position (when different to typical)
  • extreme position at the end of a range of motion not adequately covered above.
  • swept_area an area encompassing the whole range of motion.

I don’t mind there being a “typical” position shown for a jetway. If there’s a static part that has already been mapped as part of the building though I think it should be left with that mapping.

  1. OsmCha says they were gameswill2008 (18306654) ↩︎

1 Like
6

After reading the replies, I believe that the best way to map jet bridge is to all put them at the same degree (for example, sixty degrees relative to the terminal even if they appear differently on a satellite). If you think there is a better way to map jet bridges please reply to this discussion.

7

no, mapping mobile objects at fixed location is not a good idea

8

So your suggestion then would be to map all possible positions like we do for other mobile stuff like train/bus routes and ferry lines? Like somewhere through that area you can get to your plane?

How about recycling bins? They are slightly moved during getting emptied out. Maybe even switching their relative order to each other.

How about train lines, where the actual track/platform used is kind of random.

9

no, I would not map jet bridges at all if they move around and have no fixed position

that is why I use single amenity=recycling for bin group especially if they can swap position

if one day recycling bins can be on one side of building then on another then elsewhere - I would not consider them mappable

I see no point* in mapping train lines or long distance bus lines (for multiple reasons), so you should ask someone else about recommendations here

*but also I am not proposing mass deleting them

10

Yes, I also think that jet bridges should be mapped like we do for various features like moving bridges, waterway lock doors often with footway, etc.

2 Likes
11

Getting back to the original question though, they have also deleted the stubs of permanent building leading from the terminal to the start of the movable bridge.

e.g. OpenStreetMap & OpenStreetMap

Should they be mapped as a bridge only, or as a building with a walkway inside?

12

IMO they’re part of the building and it makes the most sense to leave them as part of the building most of the time.

The fact that they don’t go all the way down to ground level can be shown with building:part and building:min_level tags.

13

See this as an example (I dont like it :frowning: ):

14

Which bit in particular?

15

Doesn’t look good on map and (in my opinion) as a movable feature it shouldn’t be tagged at all.

1 Like