Re: [Tagging] Streets with gradually increasing widths

[_ _]

Node is, I think the best solution, but it also require some changes to
current editors: if you move a way, you didn't always look on each of the
moved nodes if there is a tag width=* . So editors could automatically
handle that by showing a warning like when you move a big number of points
or when you move an object outside of your view, saying "Hey ! You are
moving a tag with a width attribute, are you sure this attribute will be
still valid ?" or something like that...

This information could be crucial for [oversize load] (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load) and it's really cool to see
some people interested in mapping this !

After all, I don't think that routing is going to happen immediately for
these types of transport, but it's by adding data that can be fed into
these calculators that they will appear.

Finally, an automatic tag can be added, such as width:min=* on the ways by
the editors, to give better accessibility to tools wishing to use this data.

What do you think?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] [Voting] Feature proposal - tagging solar panel trackers

[Clay Smalley]

Voting has started for the solar tracker tagging scheme.

Please cast your vote here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Solar_Panel_Trackers

-Clay
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Streets with gradually increasing widths

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

_ _:
Node is, I think the best solution, but it also require some changes to current 
editors: if you move a way, you didn't always look on each of the moved nodes if 
there is a tag width=* . So editors could automatically handle that by showing a 
warning like when you move a big number of points or when you move an object outside 
of your view, saying "Hey ! You are moving a tag with a width attribute, are you sure 
this attribute will be still valid ?" or something like that...


This information could be crucial for [oversize load] 
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load 
) and it's really cool to see some 
people interested in mapping this !


After all, I don't think that routing is going to happen immediately for these types 
of transport, but it's by adding data that can be fed into these calculators that 
they will appear.



It does happen that width is used. I found out the hard way this summer.

I was driving a van and had put the width  of the vehicle in OsmAnd as 2.05 m.
Going to Oude Vos parking lot I was routed through some very small and narrow roads 
and ended up in a dead end.


Later I found out that the problem was that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6525244
had maxwidth=2.
I believe that OsmAnd treat "width" the same way.

I have checked with overpass turbo and found a lot of width and maxwidth values that 
look suspicious.


We should be very careful not to tag width values that are too conservative.
Even if the asphalt has eroded on a short section of a road so that it is e.g. 1.9 m 
wide, a 2.05m wide car could probably still pass.



If there is a port, gate or building passage that it 1.9m wide, it is a different 
matter. But then the 2.05m width of my car is excluding side mirrors. Including 
mirrors it is 2.3 m.



--
Niels Elgaard Larsen


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Streets with gradually increasing widths

[Volker Schmidt]

maxwidth is a legal limitation, typically signposted.

width is used on barriers as physical width of the passage.

maxwidth:physical is sometimes used to indicate the same concept on roads.

width is used to indicate the physical width of the carriageway. It is
typically used to indicate that a vehicle with that width is likely to pass
the entire length of the way.

I am sceptical about the idea of trying to tag the very specific and rare
case that the width of a carriageway changes linearly from width1 at the
beginning of the way to width2 at the end of the way. What is realistic is
that roads have irregular shapes, typically in the context of historic
towns. In those case it may make sense to model the carriageway with
area:highway=* .



On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 20:24, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:

> _ _:
> > Node is, I think the best solution, but it also require some changes to
> current
> > editors: if you move a way, you didn't always look on each of the moved
> nodes if
> > there is a tag width=* . So editors could automatically handle that by
> showing a
> > warning like when you move a big number of points or when you move an
> object outside
> > of your view, saying "Hey ! You are moving a tag with a width attribute,
> are you sure
> > this attribute will be still valid ?" or something like that...
> >
> > This information could be crucial for [oversize load]
> > (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load
> > ) and it's really cool
> to see some
> > people interested in mapping this !
> >
> > After all, I don't think that routing is going to happen immediately for
> these types
> > of transport, but it's by adding data that can be fed into these
> calculators that
> > they will appear.
>
>
> It does happen that width is used. I found out the hard way this summer.
>
> I was driving a van and had put the width  of the vehicle in OsmAnd as
> 2.05 m.
> Going to Oude Vos parking lot I was routed through some very small and
> narrow roads
> and ended up in a dead end.
>
> Later I found out that the problem was that
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6525244
> had maxwidth=2.
> I believe that OsmAnd treat "width" the same way.
>
> I have checked with overpass turbo and found a lot of width and maxwidth
> values that
> look suspicious.
>
> We should be very careful not to tag width values that are too
> conservative.
> Even if the asphalt has eroded on a short section of a road so that it is
> e.g. 1.9 m
> wide, a 2.05m wide car could probably still pass.
>
>
> If there is a port, gate or building passage that it 1.9m wide, it is a
> different
> matter. But then the 2.05m width of my car is excluding side mirrors.
> Including
> mirrors it is 2.3 m.
>
>
> --
> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging