<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Absolutely high time! Thank you for bringing this up.</p>
<p>I was under the impression that the wiki already defined it like
2). 1) is not practical because parking lanes can be informal or
can change quickly, 3) is also not practical because sidewalks +
additional greenery/space between road and sidewalk can vary a
lot.<br>
</p>
<p>I plan to soon implement a "What is the width of this road" quest
in StreetComplete where the user can measure the width of the road
using his or her smartphone (similar to the app Measure from
Google [1]). The app will need to instruct the user very clearly
what should be measured.</p>
<p>The instruction "curb to curb" is pretty clear. However, there is
one more problem to solve, what about if there are no curbs? For
example, track-like roads that just consist of either one strip of
asphalt surface or are not paved at all? I see two possible
definitions:</p>
<ol>
<li>Width of the paved surface (if paved)<br>
</li>
<li>Usable width of the road<br>
</li>
</ol>
<p>1 has the advantage that there is no room for interpretation, but
falls short of what to do with unpaved roads. 2 leaves some room
for interpretation but also covers cases where the usable width of
the road is much different from the width of the paved part of the
road.<br>
</p>
<p>Tobias<br>
</p>
<p>[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.tango.measure">https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.tango.measure</a><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14.09.20 20:34, Supaplex wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:531e2219-6283-7157-f01a-80746f954dda@riseup.net">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hey all,<br>
</p>
<p>again and again there are discussions about which parts of a
street (sidewalks and cycle paths, parking lanes, carriageway)
should be considered when determining the width of a street.
There does not seem to be a consensus and therefore information
on street widths is difficult to interpret or is not even
mapped. The following variants are common/are discussed:</p>
<p>1) Width of the actual carriageway, without parking lanes and
sidewalks<br>
2) Width between curbs / edges of the road without sidewalks,
but with parked cars when they are on street<br>
3) Width including sidewalks / roadside paths<br>
</p>
<p>I tend to option 2):<br>
- The width can be clearly defined and measured<br>
- The width of the actual carriageway can be determined by using
"parking:lane" scheme correctly (or
alternatively/supplementarily by specifying the width of parking
lanes). "width:carriageway" (or "width:lanes", if there are
marked lanes) also could be used to map this width directly.<br>
- The width of roadside paths can optionally be specified with
"sidewalk:width" etc.<br>
</p>
<p>Wouldn't it be time to document a recommendation in the Wiki to
reduce further ambiguities? Which variant is the most
recommendable? Anyway, the width of a street is a significant
value to evaluate its suitability or safety for certain modes of
transport or to determine the speed that can be expected there.</p>
<p>Thanks for your comments,<br>
Alex<br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>