On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Don't agree with this... there have been discussions in the past about > whether the "width" of a "way" includes the pavements etc... Where a road > goes under a bridge, where do you measure the "height" of the road? The > highest point (not good enough for vehicles) or the "lowest highest point" > or "in the middle of the road"? I would expect maxheight:physical to apply > to a "normal vehicle", of maybe 2.5m width. > There are cases where maxheight:physical and maxwidth:physical may be different from the legal definitions and significantly affect the viability. A standout problem regularly occurs in Oregon where you can have human powered vehicles up to about 3 feet wide legally, but many cycleways, particularly older ones built before the 1990s, have barriers that make all but the 10-speeds with drop bars impractical as negotiating the barriers that keep motorists out also prevent longer or wider bicycles from fitting. Similar issues exist on Oklahoma turnpikes, which commonly allow vehicles up to 11'6" wide, but the typical cash toll booth is only capable of fitting a 9'5" wide vehicle. Go figure.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
