[Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation
Mateusz Konieczny
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Tue Sep 15 09:04:10 UTC 2020
Sep 14, 2020, 20:34 by supaplex at riseup.net:
>
> Hey all,
>
>
> again and again there are discussions about which parts of a street (sidewalks and cycle paths, parking lanes, carriageway) should be considered when determining the width of a street. There does not seem to be a consensus and therefore information on street widths is difficult to interpret or is not even mapped. The following variants are common/are discussed:
>
>
>
> 1) Width of the actual carriageway, without parking lanes and sidewalks
> 2) Width between curbs / edges of the road without sidewalks, but with parked cars when they are on street
> 3) Width including sidewalks / roadside paths
>
>
>
>
> I tend to option 2):
> - The width can be clearly defined and measured
> - The width of the actual carriageway can be determined by using "parking:lane" scheme correctly (or alternatively/supplementarily by specifying the width of parking lanes). "width:carriageway" (or "width:lanes", if there are marked lanes) also could be used to map this width directly.
> - The width of roadside paths can optionally be specified with "sidewalk:width" etc.
>
>
>
> Wouldn't it be time to document a recommendation in the Wiki to reduce further ambiguities? Which variant is the most recommendable? Anyway, the width of a street is a significant value to evaluate its suitability or safety for certain modes of transport or to determine the speed that can be expected there.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comments,
> Alex
>
>
>
I would also expect (2)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200915/97fc5430/attachment.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list