What about the many streets and roads where the kerb or lining is bended
and curled to cut the parking lane into sections?
Best, Peter Elderson
Op di 29 sep. 2020 om 11:40 schreef Supaplex <supap...@riseup.net>:
> Now I am a little confused.
>
> As I understand Pieter, you used "width:carriageway" in Bruges in a way
> that includes parking:lanes (although you can estimate later how much is
> effectively not available for flowing traffic if using parking:lanes).
>
> My initiative for a clarification of the tagging was motivated among other
> things to find a distinction between width *with* and *without* parking
> lanes in order to not only indirectly estimate the effective width but to
> measure it directly. Personally, I had understood "width:carriageway" to
> mean only the effective width available for flowing traffic. But maybe this
> is exactly the right term for the measurement from curb to curb and we
> still need a new term for the effective width ("width:traffic_area")? Or is
> it anyway illusory to specify the effective width of a roadway, because it
> has no "fixed limit" (parking cars are changeable) and you can only
> estimate it anyway by a combination with "parking:lane"...?
>
> I think it would be helpful to be able to specify an effective width if
> needed. After all, this is the most interesting parameter for assessing the
> quality/usability of a street. Even with a full parking:lane-tagging the
> estimation is worse than simply measuring it directly. For example, in the
> case of "half_on_kerb" parking it is not clear to assume that exactly half
> the average vehicle width is "lost" on the carriageway - sometimes there is
> only one tire on the sidewalk and two thirds of the vehicle occupies the
> roadway. Also global assumptions for the loss of width when parking
> "diagonal" or "perpendicular" seem unrealistic to me. De facto, parking
> lanes almost always occupy a constant area, and the effective width of the
> carriageway can be specified to within a few decimeters on site or on
> aerial photographs.
> What do we do now? My (new) suggestion: "width:carriageway" means the
> total road width from curb to curb or from edge to edge of the road
> surface. "width:traffic_area" (or another suitable term; so far nothing
> comparable is in use as far as I see) could be used to indicate the
> effective width available for flowing traffic.
>
> Alex
>
>
> Am 27.09.20 um 22:47 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
> On 27. Sep 2020, at 13:45, Pieter Vander Vennet <pieterv...@posteo.net>
> <pieterv...@posteo.net> wrote:
> This width was tagged with 'width:carriageway'.
>
>
> I think this is a good tagging decision, being explicit about which width you
> have measured seems the way to avoid ambiguity. (and it still leaves room for
> the next project which could measure sidewalk widths ;-) ).
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
