On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer<[email protected]> wrote: > yes, you're right, 4,40 m was indeed wrong. In the EU it is 4,50 m. > That's the general maxheight (the clearance streets must have), > resulting from 4,00 maxheight for the vehicle plus 50 cm clearance. > This might differ on other continents. This could be the default, so > we don't have to post a maxheight on all streets that don't have > signs. Just in case the clearance is below 4,50 there will be a > maxheight-sign.
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with width=*. But you're free to disagree, of course. > I want to make it clear in the width-definition which height must be > available. Otherwise there will be confusion in some cases. An example might help. > In Germany it depends. If you are a car, you must not use [ the width from > line to shoulder], > if you are a bike or pedestrian and outside town, you should use it if there > is no cycleway (or footway for pedestrians). If you are planning a > special transport, you will be interested in this data. If you drive a > car, you won't need this data, because you can be sure that you will > fit on a street. ... > my proposal would result in width=lanes+marginal strip. Marginal strip > is not where you are expected to travel but it is a elemental part of > the road. For sidewalks I'm unsure. maybe it's better to have a > width:total where they are included and in normal simple "width" they > aren't. In my opinion, "marginal strip" and "elemental part of the road" is a little tricky to define for all kinds of ways. And width:total seems strange to me at first glance. Why isn't width = width:total? There we have it, my definition and your definition. The floor's open... _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
