On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer<[email protected]> wrote: >> 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"
I think the maxheight tag should be used here. There is no need to complicate the definition of width. If there is a large obstacle, then the width under that obstacle would not be included if and only if "users of the way are NOT expected to travel" under that obstacle. >> 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. Because users are not expected to travel outside the lines. It also removes the need to consider the quality of the road outside the lines, e.g. if there's gravel next to a paved road, does that count? What about a drop-off? etc., etc. The lines are there for a reason, and that is to mark the width of the road that is designated as suitable for driving on. I think that's the most suitable width to tag. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
