[Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
imagic.osm at gmail.com
Mon Feb 16 10:21:17 UTC 2015
2015-02-16 11:16 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri <lauri.kytomaa at aalto.fi>:
> The width of the vehicle that could use the way can be wider than the way
> itself, even if it depends on the conditions whether they're allowed to.
> For an example, a way in a park might be, say, 2 meters wide, but if
> there's just grass around it, a maintenance or construction vehicle or what
> ever could use that way even if all wheels don't fit on the "intended"
> surface (supposing the soil isn't too soft). Or a cycleway; the asphalt is
> 2.5 meters (width), but if there's no guard rail, a police van can use it
> even if they're wider than that (with mirrors included) - but if there's a
> guard rail on one side and a hedge on the other side, the physical maximum
> width could be just 2.6 meters (numbers off the top of my head.)
> Another likely case is when the width of a gate is, say, 3 meters (the
> whole structure), but the gap between the sides is only 2 meters: width=3 +
> Less likely cases could be a road with trees next to it, such that the
> road is 6 meters wide, but for a section the branches limit the physical
> width usable for vehicles to, for example, 4 meters. Or a divider on the
> pedestrian crossing limits the physical width of passing vehicles to x
> meters, yet the road is more than 2*x wide.
> I haven't looked up if the maximum legal width sign refers to the actual
> width (with mirrors etc) or to the width stated in the vehicle's
> registration documents. Nevertheless, a road with a width of 2.6 meters
> (e.g. a narrow old town alley or a courtyard entrance) may, or may not,
> physically allow a vehicle with a width of 2.55 m + mirrors to pass.
Thanks for all the examples.
> It's true that good example photos would be a nice touch to the
That was the original intention of my question ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging