[OSM-talk] tagging roads

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Martin
Koppenhoefer<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, you're right, 4,40 m was indeed wrong. In the EU it is 4,50 m.
> That's the general maxheight (the clearance streets must have),
> resulting from 4,00 maxheight for the vehicle plus 50 cm clearance.
> This might differ on other continents. This could be the default, so
> we don't have to post a maxheight on all streets that don't have
> signs. Just in case the clearance is below 4,50 there will be a
> maxheight-sign.

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with width=*. But you're free to
disagree, of course.

> I want to make it clear in the width-definition which height must be
> available. Otherwise there will be confusion in some cases.

An example might help.

> In Germany it depends. If you are a car, you must not use [ the width from line to shoulder],
> if you are a bike or pedestrian and outside town, you should use it if there
> is no cycleway (or footway for pedestrians). If you are planning a
> special transport, you will be interested in this data. If you drive a
> car, you won't need this data, because you can be sure that you will
> fit on a street.
...
> my proposal would result in width=lanes+marginal strip. Marginal strip
> is not where you are expected to travel but it is a elemental part of
> the road. For sidewalks I'm unsure. maybe it's better to have a
> width:total where they are included and in normal simple "width" they
> aren't.

In my opinion, "marginal strip" and "elemental part of the road" is a
little tricky to define for all kinds of ways. And width:total seems
strange to me at first glance. Why isn't width = width:total?

There we have it, my definition and your definition. The floor's open...