2009/8/3 Roy Wallace <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Martin > Koppenhoefer<[email protected]> wrote: >> Certainly it would be even more useful, if there was a definition how >> to measure (inside road marking, complete with pavement, does the >> lateral paved area outside the road marking count, etc.). > > I think this is very important, and probably the biggest issue with a > width tag. I would suggest: > > Tag the width of the surface on which users of the way are expected to travel.
I agree and would like to add: "and that is not constricted in the full usable height" Sorry for my English, feel free to put it better, I try to explain: it is not about the height but the surface must be available in the full height, if there are obstacles protruding into the way, this width does not count. For plants I'm less sure here, as they tend to grow (yes, really) and after a while are cut though. So maybe it will only be about solid obstacles (say incl. trees) but not bushes and the like. > For paved ways (roads, cycleways, footpaths, etc), this would normally > be between the parallel edges of the paved area (i.e. not including > road shoulder, etc). For roads with line marking, users of the way are > expected to travel between the lines, so area outside the road marking > would not count toward the value of the width tag. well, why not outside the lines? If you really have to know the width of the road (transport or similar, or you want to calculate the sealed area), you won't care about lines. Otherwise you won't need the width tag, because as I pointed out in another post: all usual vehicles (in Germany and probably Europe) must be inside 2,55 width and 4,00 m height. Otherwise they can not travel without beeing accompanied by policecars and other expensive stuff (like special permits, ...). > For unpaved ways, the definition does not change - "the surface on > which users of the way are expected to travel". yes, in this case the tag will be highly subjective. Besides that unpaved ways tend to change continuously their width (be it along them as in different seasons), there will also be need of interpretation about the limits. Still a very useful tag, and good to distinguish a 30 cm footway from a 1,50 m one. If someone else sees them as 50 cm and 1,65 m, it still remains usefull. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
