Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Not all airfields with ICAO code of source OurAirports are shown #179

Closed
maesteve opened this issue Jan 18, 2024 · 7 comments · Fixed by #180
Closed

Not all airfields with ICAO code of source OurAirports are shown #179

maesteve opened this issue Jan 18, 2024 · 7 comments · Fixed by #180
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@maesteve
Copy link

If you filter to show only airfields with ICAO code some are not included, e.g. LEVY

Its id is ES-0052 not the ICAO code. The ICAO codes are found in the gps_code attribute.

@vsimakhin
Copy link
Owner

ok, I need to update the way I import data. The thing is, if I take gps_code as ICAO field - there will be duplicates

@vsimakhin vsimakhin added the bug Something isn't working label Jan 19, 2024
@vsimakhin
Copy link
Owner

And ES-0052 is for sure a not usable code to have it in the logbook...

@maesteve
Copy link
Author

Other example, ES-0090 with ICAO code LEVL.

This happens when the airfield is created in OurAirports and does not yet have an ICAO code and is assigned to it later.

@vsimakhin
Copy link
Owner

If you take a look at LELI code in the airports.csv file. There is one with gps_code = LELI and it's a small airfield El Molinillo Airfield with internal code ES-0190. There is also a record with internal code LELI without gps_code and it's a small airfield (probably ultralight?) Aeródromo de Linares. And I don't know how to better resolve the "conflict" here.. obviously the airfield with ICAO code has priority, but what to do with another one? I can set ICAO = 'AERODROME DE LINARES' in the database, but it will "brake" the logbook export due to length of the field, and in case the name is changes - it will be lost within the next update.

@vsimakhin
Copy link
Owner

Might be, as a solution for example I provided, I can make ICAO = 'AERODROME DE LINARES' - yes, it will be a long one, but I can add a "copy" button to the airport db view, which will copy the record to the "Custom Airports DB" and then it will be possible to update/change it to have it more friendly in the logbook. So in this case we sort of will have the bigger DB with all the small airfields, and also it will be "maintainable".

You thoughts?

@vsimakhin
Copy link
Owner

Hm.. still will not work due to lot of duplicates in ICAO

MILLIPORE HELIPORT|2
MILLER ARMY AIRFIELD|2
MILLER AIRPORT|4
MILITARY RUNWAY|2
MILITARY HELIPAD|12
MIKI HELIPORT|3
MIDWAY AIRPORT|5
MIDLAND AIRPORT|2

@maesteve
Copy link
Author

maesteve commented Jan 19, 2024

If you take a look at LELI code in the airports.csv file. There is one with gps_code = LELI and it's a small airfield El Molinillo Airfield with internal code ES-0190. There is also a record with internal code LELI without gps_code and it's a small airfield (probably ultralight?) Aeródromo de Linares. And I don't know how to better resolve the "conflict" here.. obviously the airfield with ICAO code has priority, but what to do with another one? I can set ICAO = 'AERODROME DE LINARES' in the database, but it will "brake" the logbook export due to length of the field, and in case the name is changes - it will be lost within the next update.

El Molinillo Airfield with internal code ES-0190 and gps_code LELI is correct. Available in the AIP
https://aip.enaire.es/aip/contenido_AIP/GEN/LE_GEN_2_4_en.pdf

The ICAO code can only be obtained and is valid from the gps_code field. The ICAO code of an aerodrome can be lost and assigned to another aerodrome.

@vsimakhin vsimakhin linked a pull request Jan 19, 2024 that will close this issue
@vsimakhin vsimakhin self-assigned this Jan 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants