Ok @Mapbox, I’ve given you enough grace. I pulled the grumpy-old-man thing with Kenneth Field from ESRI a couple of weeks ago, and ended up apologizing. If i only give ESRI a few hours of grace, 3 months of grace for you is more than fair.
Now, to raise my foot up. We’ll see if it ends up in my mouth again.
Ok, so Mapbox and drones. Mapbox and drones. Those folks are excited about drones. They’ve got a toolchain their working on, and integration into their existing services, and lots of posts about drones. Downright giddiness I say:
And then this:
Really? 3 months ago, you launch “Don’t Fly Here”, create a repo for feedback and improvements to the data, but the biggest problem that you haven’t even tried to fix is the map really under represents the restrictions on where you should fly if you are trying to stay out of controlled air space, and the major update you do is adding temporary flight restrictions. Glitz and glory over getting the fundamentals right.
Here’s the current Mapbox no fly zones:
But, we are missing a lot of smaller airports that also have controlled airspace. Let’s be considerate to our hobbiest drone friends and put them in with 3-mile buffers and refine our 5-mile buffers on medium and large airports to include the edges of the airport, just to be on the safe side:
Well, that’s a bit less inviting. But hey, still plenty of places to fly, right? Uh, no. We forgot, according to the Aeronautical Information Manual, in certain busy airspace, there is a Mode C requirement for all craft flying in the airspace. This means you need to have a transponder to fly in this space between ground and 10,000ft above mean sea level. This is a transponder that weighs several times what your drone can lift — in otherwords a “non-starter”, effectively making these zones no-fly zones as well. What does Hopkins look like with it’s 30 nautical mile Mode C requirement?:
Now, to be fair, this is murky legal territory at best and I am not a lawyer. How much applies to hobbiests given the 1981 Advisory Circular I can’t say I know. But, if we are to propose a map to clarify where we can and cannot fly as hobbiests, then we should be including as much information (in a simple and easy to use way) as we can. On these grounds, “Don’t Fly Here” fails.
It’s cool though. It’s an open
source data project in an open source community. Community contributions and knowledge will fix all mistakes in time, so my pull request to get to the second map will be reviewed and rejected on solid grounds or integrated, right?
Three months later, I’m still waiting… . Fix your map please. Engage your repo users. Do this right. Please.