Correct Mollis airport ICAO identifier LSZM and LFSB/BSL/MLH dual airport #152
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a bit of a complicated one:
Mollis Airport has a new ICAO identifier: LSZM.
Previously, as military airport, it had the following identifier: LSMF, which was changed to LSZM when it became a civil airport.
This issue however is that previously EuroAirport Basel Mulhouse Freiburg had LSZM as second ICAO identifier.
Since the airport now only has one ICAO identifier, LFSB, but two IATA codes (BSL for the Swiss part and MLH for the French part) we have the problem that our keys can no longer be unique as one key (i.e. the ICAO code) has multiple values...
I have circumvented this for now by creating a new key LFSB-FR for the French (less used) part of the airport, but this creates a myriad of new problems: there may be implementations that have the assumption that they keys are 4 digits, how can we find the MLH airport using that key as it is a non-standard format etc.
We could have duplicate keys in JSON but the handling and implementation could introduce unwanted side effects.
I have created this PR for now, but will not merge. The current info is wrong, however, this updated information poses also some potential issues, although correct, for implementations using this data.