[OSM-talk] tagging roads

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/3 Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Martin
> Koppenhoefer<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Certainly it would be even more useful, if there was a definition how
>> to measure (inside road marking, complete with pavement, does the
>> lateral paved area outside the road marking count, etc.).
>
> I think this is very important, and probably the biggest issue with a
> width tag. I would suggest:
>
> Tag the width of the surface on which users of the way are expected to travel.

I agree and would like to add: "and that is not constricted in the
full usable height"
Sorry for my English, feel free to put it better, I try to explain: it
is not about the height but the surface must be available in the full
height, if there are obstacles protruding into the way, this width
does not count. For plants I'm less sure here, as they tend to grow
(yes, really) and after a while are cut though. So maybe it will only
be about solid obstacles (say incl. trees) but not bushes and the
like.

> For paved ways (roads, cycleways, footpaths, etc), this would normally
> be between the parallel edges of the paved area (i.e. not including
> road shoulder, etc). For roads with line marking, users of the way are
> expected to travel between the lines, so area outside the road marking
> would not count toward the value of the width tag.

well, why not outside the lines? If you really have to know the width
of the road (transport or similar, or you want to calculate the sealed
area), you won't care about lines. Otherwise you won't need the width
tag, because as I pointed out in another post: all usual vehicles (in
Germany and probably Europe) must be inside 2,55 width and 4,00 m
height. Otherwise they can not travel without beeing accompanied by
policecars  and other expensive stuff (like special permits, ...).

> For unpaved ways, the definition does not change - "the surface on
> which users of the way are expected to travel".

yes, in this case the tag will be highly subjective. Besides that
unpaved ways tend to change continuously their width (be it along them
as in different seasons), there will also be need of interpretation
about the limits.

Still a very useful tag, and good to distinguish a 30 cm footway from
a 1,50 m one. If someone else sees them as 50 cm and 1,65 m, it still
remains usefull.

cheers,
Martin