On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Roy Wallace<waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Blaž Lorger<blaz.lor...@triera.net> wrote: >> To my knowledge there is no such thing as usual highway width. There are >> certain standards for width of newly built roads, but those usually increase >> over time, which means you will be forced to periodically reevaluate *ALL* >> "narrow" tagging. > > +1
I'm not sure that the width of what we consider unclassified roads will double in the next century. >> Having actual road width is always more useful than having just some >> subjective estimate whether road is too narrow or not. Besides rendering you >> can use it to improve routing based on actual vehicle width/size. > > +1. >> some subjective factor is inevitable, but at least it should be kept as low >> as >> possible. > > +1 > > Tagging width=* is more faithful to what actually exists on the > ground, which is always the better long term approach. And the meaning > is much clearer than narrow=*, especially for those who only skim the > wiki. I never mentionned narrow=* but narrow=yes, where did you see narrow=* ? > > Also, width=* interacts nicely with lanes=* - from these two tags you > can see the width of the entire way, and also calculate the width of > each lane. Whereas with narrow=*, it's not quite as clear whether this > refers to narrow lanes or a narrow way... > Why don't you think width is for a lane ? oh, ok it is documented on the wiki. Again, width is not less subjective because it is always estimated (deprecating est_width just hides this point), it is missing in most of the highways, it is changing continuously along the roads and a width of 6 meters does not say if an hgv can pass or not, it will never replace the access restriction tags. Pieren _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
