Re: [Tagging] sleepable:physical=yes/no | Re: Benches and hostile architecture

sent from a phone > On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:27, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Is it maybe more universal to map > strictly objective parameters instead? > > It seems for me that mapping > length, armrest in the middle and width > would be both far more objective and >

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

sent from a phone > On 15. Sep 2020, at 21:39, Mark Wagner wrote: > > Which one is "the" width of the road? not only from year to year but also with the seasons... Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:09:17 +0200 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > on unpaved > roads, measure the extent of the maximum width that vehicles actually > use, on a medium to narrow part of the highway (i.e. do not add the > smallest width to a long stretch of highway if it only occurs for a > short

Re: [Tagging] sleepable:physical=yes/no | Re: Benches and hostile architecture

Is it maybe more universal to map strictly objective parameters instead? It seems for me that mapping length, armrest in the middle and width would be both far more objective and potentially useful also for other purposes 10 Sep 2020, 20:10 by r...@technomancy.org: > I asked about this ~1½

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

On 15.09.20 10:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Looking at width tag variants: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=width here are those with more than 1K uses Please be careful with such a list. E.g. width:shoulder stems from a user in Finland and from something that looks like an old

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

I expect the "width" of a way to be the actual width of the object it represents. This obviously changes depending on the mapping style applied, e.g. - if it's a highway with sidewalk and cycleway tags, it's the width of all of it - if it's just a road with footways mapped as separate ways

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

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

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 10:34, Tobias Zwick wrote: > I plan to soon implement a "What is the width of this road" quest in > StreetComplete where the user can measure the width of the road using his > or her smartphone (similar to the app Measure from Google [1]). The app > will need to instruct

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

Am Di., 15. Sept. 2020 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Tobias Zwick : > I was under the impression that the wiki already defined it like 2). > If it were like this it would be fortunate, because we already have nearly 1,9 million highways tagged with "width", and if we could reasonably expect that these

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

Absolutely high time! Thank you for bringing this up. I was under the impression that the wiki already defined it like 2). 1) is not practical because parking lanes can be informal or can change quickly, 3) is also not practical because sidewalks + additional greenery/space between road and

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

Am Mo., 14. Sept. 2020 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Supaplex : > 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

[Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

Two tags were just added to the list of approved and de-facto highway =* tags on Map features: highway =emergency_bay and