Peter Duniho wrote:

Clearly, at least with respect to that regulation, those "taxiways" are
not defined as "taxiways" for the purpose of that regulation.Â*Â*EvenÂ*if
theyÂ*are otherwise exactly like a taxiway in every other respect
(including being called a "taxiway" by ATC).

This is giving me what I'll choose to call a headache, even if it is similar
to every other headache but for the differences between this headache and
all headaches.

In your case at KCDW, the important question is whether the boundary of
the non-movement area is clearly marked on the pavement.Â*Â*IÂ*don'tÂ*know
whether it is or not; I suspect that because ATC treats it as a
non-movement area, that it is so marked, but it's possible that it's not.

I'm not sure; I'll have to look.

- Andrew