[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

[Colin Smale]

Pieren wrote:
> 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 
vehicle width)?

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.

Colin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100222/38db4819/attachment.html>