Introduction

Problem Statement

For a long time there has not been a clear and widely established system of categorizing aerodromes. One is necessary, so that international airports and small aerodromes can each be given proper emphasis in the database. This proposal aims to fix this issue.

Proposal

An aerodrome can by classified by its level of infrastructure:

Then its usage can by specified:

A special tag for seaplane bases is used as is done with heliports:

Extra tags can be used to add detail to the aerodrome:

Military aerodromes can be mapped by adding a military=* tag to them or to an area within them.

Disused aerodromes can be mapped by adding a lifecycle prefix to them.

Rationale

Current System

Currently mappers seem to be using both the aerodrome=* and aerodrome:type=* tags for classifying aerodromes. In these tags, various natures of values are used like "international", "regional", "private" and "gliding" that mix different characteristics of aerodromes. All of these characteristics should instead have their own tags.

Previous Systems

Near the beginning of OSM aerodromes were divided into Airports, Aerodromes and Airfields. This system was lost after an incident, but it still is a natural and useful way to categorize aerodromes, that is, by size or prominence.

Previous proposals sometimes mixed in type of use in the main tag which is not ideal, since usage, like general vs. commercial or sports is usually mixed and other tags are better fit for this purpose.

Main Tags

The original system is largely good as a base, however new names should be used. The aeroway=aerodrome tag as a catch-all has become very prominent and changing it would cause large disturbances to data users. The term "aerodrome" is also legally a catch-all term for a place any aircraft can land on, despite being used informally to refer to smaller airfields.

I propose bringing back the 3-tag system using the terms "Airport", "Airfield" and "Airstrip" to describe the overall developmental size of an aerodrome. "Airport" is commonly used to refer to large aerodromes, "Airfield" is a synonym for smaller aerodromes and an "Airstrip" is generally accepted as being a low development aerodrome.

The usage=* tag can then be used to specify how an aerodrome is being used, that is, for commercial travel, for general leisure, or both.

Seaplane Bases

By definition of the ICAO, an aerodrome is anywhere an aircraft can land and take-off. In most cases, this is also the case with the aerodrome=* tag in OSM, irrespective of the types of aircraft that use the aerodrome.

However, precedent has been set by the aeroway=heliport tag, which describes an aerodrome in which only helicopters can land. This makes sense as even though airplanes and helicopters both can use mixed aerodromes, they are always dominated by airplanes since helicopters are an expensive, limited, niche mode of travel. This means that a heliport is very different from a regular aerodrome in terms of the facilities, training and equipment necessary to use it.

The same can be said of seaplanes. The era of seaplanes is long gone since land aerodromes became plentiful after WW2. Now they are limited forms of travel mostly used in undeveloped areas of the world. Seaplane bases also are very different from the average aerodrome requiring special equipment and training. Thus, like heliports, seaplane bases should have their own tag, aeroway=seaplane_base.

The alternatives would be using extra an seaplane=yes tag, which is still inventing new tags, or putting it in the main tag, which would make it less consistent. Both clash with the existence of the aeroway=heliport tag.

Extra Tags

Private aerodromes can be indicated using the access=* tag. Many times, a private aerodrome is still accessible to the public, even if in limited ways. The many values of the tag give many ways to describe these situations.

In case airsports are practiced at an aerodrome the sport=* tag is used. These can happen at a variety of aerodrome sizes and while other traffic is using the aerodrome.

Finally, whether an aerodrome can receive international traffic or not is described by the port_of_entry=* tag. This is normally a legal matter and should be available publicly. It can also be used by other objects like ports or border crossings.

Military and Disused

Current methods for mapping military or disused aerodromes are acceptable.

For purely military aerodromes, add a military=base or military=airfield tag to the aeroway=aerodrome. For joint aerodromes separate the two, giving the aeroway=aerodrome tag to the entire aerodrome and the military tag to the areas under control of the military.

In the case of disused aerodromes, add a disused:*=*, or abandoned:*=*, etc. to the aeroway=aerodrome tag.

Alternative Tags

In order to improve the transition between systems, aeroway=airstrip is not deprecated and is left as an alternative tag. In areas with a large number of airstrips, changing to aeroway=aerodrome could make them swarm the map if data users are slow to adopt, which is why until a later period they should be left as is.

The tag military=airfield is also left as an alternative tag to military=base.

Tagging

Definitions

Main Tags

The following descriptions are guidelines based on airport statistics compiled on my page and visual analysis of some of the airports.

Mappers are free to use them as they best see fit.

Seaplane Bases

Extra Tags

Examples

Commercial Focused

General Focused

Seaplane

Private

Military

Disused

Impacts of Proposal

On Data Consumers

Impact should be minimal as the base aeroway=aerodrome tag is not changed and aeroway=airstrip is left as an alternative tag.

Features/Pages affected

Created

aerodrome=airport/airfield/airstrip

usage=mixed/commercial/general

aeroway=seaplane_base

port_of_entry=*

Deprecated

The following tags have all their functionality moved from them and become obsolete:

aerodrome:type=* and its values

Current values of aerodrome=*

Previous Discussions

Wiki

Talk:Aeroways#Airport_Classification

Proposals

Proposal:Airport

Proposal:Aerodrome

Proposal:Key:aerodrome

Proposal:Aerodrome 3

Forum

Doubts with aerodrome tagging

Gap in aerodrome type tagging

Mailing List

Aeroway=Aerodrome Modifier Tags?

Aerodrome types

Aerodrome classification

Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page or the forum post.

Voting

• 👁 I approve this proposal
  I approve this proposal. --Zimtschnecke (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 I approve this proposal
  I approve this proposal. Distinguishing between major, international airports and small, private runways would be extremely useful for data consumers. --Flap Slimy Outward (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 I abstain from voting but have comments
  I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Lean yes. I have some minor concerns over usage=mixed -- existing usage is only on ways, not areas. Maybe change to a prefix tag. Otherwise seems to be well reasoned. Collapsing the classification into just 3 levels is probably for the best -- more detail can be added later if ever but I doubt a solid enough classification will ever get made. --Campbelltree (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I chose to use the usage=* tag in order to reuse currently existing tags. Do you think another tag more commonly associated with areas or services should be used? --Telegram Sam (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 I approve this proposal
  I approve this proposal. I much (very much) prefer this re-worked proposal focusing more on physical characteristics of an aerodrome, and feel this leads to the introduction of more tags in the future (e.g. automated traffic, amount of gates). I feel this also helps bridge a gap with data, as my local aerodrome is very much a general aviation "airfield", but has 4 runways. --O0235 (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 I oppose this proposal
  I oppose this proposal. Strongly oppose widening the definition of aeroway=aerodrome to include airstrips, as discussed extensively on the talk page. The proposal barely mentions this major change and its risk. We shouldn't be changing the defintion of aeroway=aerodrome after 20 years, many data consumers will never update their code. This will cause farm fields to be rendered with the same prominence as an airport, on every OSM based map. --Kylenz 10:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello again. Following your advice, aerodrome=airstrip isn't deprecated in the proposal and becomes an alternative tag. Users have the option to move them to aerodrome=airstrip or not. In Portugal, for example, most airstrips were already tagged as aeroway=aerodrome so impact is minimal, but in Australia for example airstrips can stay as aeroway=airstrip. --Telegram Sam (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 I oppose this proposal
  I oppose this proposal. While the proposal as written now is better than it started out, it's still way too subjective. What is an "important" thing to one data consumer is less important to another - they are each free to use the other tags associated with the object. Also, statements like "And yes, all current uses of aerodrome=* and aerodrome:type=* become obsolete." at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/voting-feature-proposal-aerodrome-classification/142801/3 betrays at best a "lack of seriousness"? --SomeoneElse (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That's the thing: There are no other tags that describe an aerodrome. No tags describing how big it is, how it's used, who uses it. This proposal adds those tags so that data consumers may use them for their own purposes. I also don't think they're subjective at all. In fact, their guidelines are very specific.

Additionally, can you elaborate on how my statement transmits a lack of seriousness? Under the proposal the aerodrome=* tag is given a very specific meaning and all other uses are transfered from it. I am not wrong in saying that all current uses become obsolete under it. --Telegram Sam (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Saying "all current uses become obsolete under it" without thinking through the implications implies to me that you are not serious. SomeoneElse (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It is strange that you think I said it without thinking. Let's go over the top values for aerodrome=* and aerodrome:type=* and see what happens to them.

"public" becomes access=yes, "airfield" needs to be retagged as it follows a different definition, "regional" needs to be retagged as it isn't one of the valid values for size, probably as "airfield", "international" becomes port_of_entry=yes, "private" becomes access=private, "military/public" refers to a joint aerodrome which means the military area is drawn separately, "gliding" becomes airsport=gliding, "military" becomes military=base, "international;public" becomes access=yes and port_of_entry=yes, "seaplane" becomes aeroway=seaplane_base, "airstrip" likely needs to be retagged but could stay the same, "airsport" becomes sport=*, "mountain_airfield" becomes altitude=*, "aerodrome_marking" I don't know what they refer to, "domestic" becomes port_of_entry=no, "civil" means it's not military so lacks military tags.

Where is the lapse in my judgement? Why should values which have no relation to a new tag definition be seen as still valid? --Telegram Sam (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Tags do not "become" some other tag. You need to work with the OSM ecosystem to persuade people of the need for a change, and work with them to implement that change. SomeoneElse (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to be overly focused on my choice of words. Nowhere do I say that tags should be converted in mass. I am simply trying to introduce a formal standard where none exists, which is exactly working with the OSM community. --Telegram Sam (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 I oppose this proposal
  I oppose this proposal. I think the definitions for aerodrome= are too arbitrary, and overlap with each other. I don't think airfield needs to exist, a division between an airport and airstrip is enough. I don't think seaplane bases should be moved to a separate aeroway= tag, but should instead be a subtype of aerodrome= e.g. aerodrome=water_aerodrome. Proposing moving to aerodrome=airstrip instead of aeroway=airstrip but also allowing aeroway=airstrip as an 'alternative' tag is confusing, unnecessary and is not a proper solution. --LordGarySugar (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, it is very useful to distinguish small local aerodromes from large airports. Can you also specify how the criteria are arbitrary and intersect? Level of infrastructure is a very good determinant of the size of an aerodrome and so is the size of aircraft that use it.

As for seaplane bases, why should they be treated differently than heliports? Isn't that inconsistent?

Finally, what solution would you give to airstrips? I have an opposing vote here that says transfering them risks them swarming the map in places where they're dense. You can't make separate aeroway=* tags either because then data consumers lose the large airports in the transition, which is worse. I found this was the optimal strategy, letting both tags coexist until the new one is more established. --Telegram Sam (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is useful to distinguish between small and large airports. But the definitions you have for airport is generally large to medium, and the definition for airfield is medium to small. If a given aerodrome has medium sized terminal and infrastructure, which category should it fall under?

Seaplane bases are currently tagged as aeroway=aerodrome, so changing this tag would be very disruptive to data consumers and renderers. No consideration is given to the impact of making this change.

As for the aeroway=airstrip problem, it is not possible for both the current and your proposed tagging schema to coexist as you claim. aeroway=aerodrome and aeroway=airstrip are mutually exclusive tags, you cannot have a gradual transition between two tags that use the same key. --LordGarySugar (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 I oppose this proposal
  I oppose this proposal. There are too many edge cases to stick everything into tight classifications --Fizzie41 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I thought we had gone through various edge cases and solved all of them? Can you give examples of edge cases that don't fit? --Telegram Sam (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 I approve this proposal
  I approve this proposal. --Caboulot (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)