When Validating this airport for gateway submission it gives an error that Rwy 20 is not in the right place. According to the ESRI imagery, the runway layout is correct. All other runways validate correct including runway 02
I have checked the data and it agrees with current real-world data for this airport. If this doesn't line up with the satellite image, either the satellite image is poorly georeferenced (unlikely, since you say the other runways validate) or the real world published data is just wrong. We can't do anything about the latter, as we don't control or own this data. All I can say is that the runway 20 threshold is validated to be exactly where my real world EFB says it should be.
Probably the issue is because AIP data are incorrect or ortho is incorrect. I test thefour rwy heads and three are in correct position with ESRI image but only head of ryw 20 is incorrect.
Runways must adhere to CIFP data. If it is not correct, please contact the civil aviation authority of the nation in question to correct it.
Green_Banana
commented
in reference to scenery pack
101423on March 20, 2024 8:10 PM
I have uploaded a possible solution to our problem. Runway 02/20 with the CIFP data issue has been changed to a dirt surface, narrowed in width and has no markings. The X-Plane layering hierarchy places dirt underneath asphalt, so it does not impede other surfaces. I have added a new asphalt runway 01/19 in the correct position. If and when new CIFP data becomes available, the dirt runway can be deleted and runway 01/19 can be renamed 02/20.
You must be logged in to participate in the discussion
When Validating this airport for gateway submission it gives an error that Rwy 20 is not in the right place. According to the ESRI imagery, the runway layout is correct. All other runways validate correct including runway 02
Philipp Ringler March 2, 2021 6:53 AM
I have checked the data and it agrees with current real-world data for this airport. If this doesn't line up with the satellite image, either the satellite image is poorly georeferenced (unlikely, since you say the other runways validate) or the real world published data is just wrong. We can't do anything about the latter, as we don't control or own this data. All I can say is that the runway 20 threshold is validated to be exactly where my real world EFB says it should be.
Runway data is not match with CIFP then I can't upload the current airport update
ecallr March 25, 2024 11:03 AM
Probably the issue is because AIP data are incorrect or ortho is incorrect. I test thefour rwy heads and three are in correct position with ESRI image but only head of ryw 20 is incorrect.
Jan Vogel March 27, 2024 6:08 AM
Runways must adhere to CIFP data. If it is not correct, please contact the civil aviation authority of the nation in question to correct it.
I have uploaded a possible solution to our problem. Runway 02/20 with the CIFP data issue has been changed to a dirt surface, narrowed in width and has no markings. The X-Plane layering hierarchy places dirt underneath asphalt, so it does not impede other surfaces. I have added a new asphalt runway 01/19 in the correct position. If and when new CIFP data becomes available, the dirt runway can be deleted and runway 01/19 can be renamed 02/20.