On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:31:15AM +0100, Douwe Kiela wrote:
> >
> > If airports had everything from http://www.mapping.com/airportcodes.html,
> > it would be ~1MB - I think that's a bit too much, comparing to current
> 14KB :-)
> > I guess letting people add those that they consider "important" should
> still work.
> Yes, I think a limit should have to be set somewhere,
> we shouldn't care about really small airports, e.g. on the IATA
> list (http://www.mapping.com/airportcodes.html) they also mention
> very small airports such a Bergen op Zoom, the Netherlands.
> 
> A more usefull list to use is this one, it mentions only the larger
> airports:
> 
> http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/airport_code.htm
> 
> However, I'm not sure whether letting people add those that
> they consider "important" is a good thing, because you find
> for example Polish airports important, and others don't..
> Are all of these airports you added large Polish airports? I
> don't think they are..
Of course not, but notice that I added 7 out of ~30 or something. That's what
I considered to be a compromise between "why not", and "don't add utterly useless ones".
Thus far people didn't seem to request addition of an insane number of airports,
so I guess adding them on-request is still some way to handle this.

Cheers,
  Tomasz

-- 
/* Tomasz Luchowski <tomasz@luchowski.com> */