<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Sep 14, 2020, 20:34 by supaplex@riseup.net:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><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:<br></p><p></p><div>1) Width of the actual carriageway, without parking lanes and
sidewalks<br></div><div> 2) Width between curbs / edges of the road without sidewalks, but
with parked cars when they are on street<br></div><div> 3) Width including sidewalks / roadside paths<br></div><p></p><p></p><div>I tend to option 2):<br></div><div> - The width can be clearly defined and measured<br></div><div> - 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></div><div> - The width of roadside paths can optionally be specified with
"sidewalk:width" etc.<br></div><p></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.<br></p><p></p><div>Thanks for your comments,<br></div><div> Alex<br></div><p></p></blockquote><div>I would also expect (2)<br></div> </body>
</html>