[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 07:36:40 GMT 2010

> I come to a road with width=3 - that is indeed "useful".
> I come to a road with narrow=yes - that is not as "useful".

I just don't understand how everyone can have the same argument, again
and again, about every new tag or idea suggested.

"highway=residential" - somewhat useful
"highway=residential narrow=yes" - more useful
"highway=residential est_width=4" - more useful again
"highway=residential width=4.2" - more useful still.

Pretty damn obvious. Obviously, we would all like perfect data with
perfect precision throughout OSM, but we can't have it. When we lack
precise data, imprecise data is often better than nothing. Now, the
concept of "narrow" may not be precisely defined, but that doesn't
mean it's completely subjective either. It could be defined by the
presence of warning signs, by reference to standard road widths in the
area, or simply the mapper's intuition. If another mapper disagrees
with the first, then by all means get out the measuring tape. It
doesn't happen often.

(As for the specific proposal, "width=narrow", that's clearly dumb. It
should be "narrow=yes", not "width=narrow".)


More information about the Tagging mailing list