Sep 14, 2020, 20:34 by supap...@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)
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
