[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width
colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Mon Feb 22 19:19:58 GMT 2010
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
> no, you can always compare it to the width of your vehicle, therefore
> it doesn't require that all streets are tagged width it.
> ?? With my Fiat 500 or you BMW X5 ?
> AND: you can
> always compare to the construction standards for new roads in your
> part of the world.
> But that's the point. If you write on a segment of residential
> "width=4", it will be narrow in US and normal in old Europe. That's
> why I said that a width is only useful if you can compare it to
> something else. I'm still waiting a proposal for the default width per
> highway category.
Don't want to stir up a whole new hornet's nest, but would that be
kerb-to-kerb (i.e. tarmac width) or wall-to-wall (limiting the overall
In the Netherlands, and probably other countries as well, there is an
assumed minimum headroom (4.0m) and probably width as well. Any
obstruction not marked with a sign can be assumed to be at least
high/wide as the minimum. I know an international truck driver
(UK-based) who has to know such details, as the assumed minimum headroom
in e.g. UK is higher (16ft/5.03m according to Wikipedia). So if he is
driving a truck 4.1m high he cannot rely on the signage in NL.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging