<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p>Now I am a little confused.</p>
<p>As I understand Pieter, you used "width:carriageway" in Bruges in
a way that includes parking:lanes (although you can estimate later
how much is effectively not available for flowing traffic if using
parking:lanes).</p>
<p>My initiative for a clarification of the tagging was motivated
among other things to find a distinction between width <i>with</i>
and <i>without</i> parking lanes in order to not only indirectly
estimate the effective width but to measure it directly.
Personally, I had understood "width:carriageway" to mean only the
effective width available for flowing traffic. But maybe this is
exactly the right term for the measurement from curb to curb and
we still need a new term for the effective width
("width:traffic_area")? Or is it anyway illusory to specify the
effective width of a roadway, because it has no "fixed limit"
(parking cars are changeable) and you can only estimate it anyway
by a combination with "parking:lane"...?</p>
<p>I think it would be helpful to be able to specify an effective
width if needed. After all, this is the most interesting parameter
for assessing the quality/usability of a street. Even with a full
parking:lane-tagging the estimation is worse than simply measuring
it directly. For example, in the case of "half_on_kerb" parking it
is not clear to assume that exactly half the average vehicle width
is "lost" on the carriageway - sometimes there is only one tire on
the sidewalk and two thirds of the vehicle occupies the roadway.
Also global assumptions for the loss of width when parking
"diagonal" or "perpendicular" seem unrealistic to me. De facto,
parking lanes almost always occupy a constant area, and the
effective width of the carriageway can be specified to within a
few decimeters on site or on aerial photographs.</p>
What do we do now? My (new) suggestion: "width:carriageway" means
the total road width from curb to curb or from edge to edge of the
road surface. "width:traffic_area" (or another suitable term; so far
nothing comparable is in use as far as I see) could be used to
indicate the effective width available for flowing traffic.<br>
<p>Alex<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 27.09.20 um 22:47 schrieb Martin
Koppenhoefer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8D1E0D3A-428F-4779-9997-6DF7CBA8D0EB@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
sent from a phone
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 27. Sep 2020, at 13:45, Pieter Vander Vennet <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pietervdvn@posteo.net"><pietervdvn@posteo.net></a> wrote:
This width was tagged with 'width:carriageway'.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I think this is a good tagging decision, being explicit about which width you have measured seems the way to avoid ambiguity. (and it still leaves room for the next project which could measure sidewalk widths ;-) ).
Cheers Martin
</pre>
<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>