Am Mo., 14. Sept. 2020 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Supaplex <supap...@riseup.net>:
> 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 therefore information on street widths is difficult to > interpret or is not even mapped. > indeed, mapping the width generally requires measuring the width, and it is often not practical (unless you are willing to spend a lot of time or have very good aerial imagery at hand). > The following variants are common/are discussed: > > 1) Width of the actual carriageway, without parking lanes and sidewalks > 2) Width between curbs / edges of the road without sidewalks, but with > parked cars when they are on street > 3) Width including sidewalks / roadside paths > > I tend to option 2): > - The width can be clearly defined and measured > - The width of the actual carriageway can be determined by using > "parking:lane" scheme correctly (or alternatively/supplementarily by > specifying the width of parking lanes). "width:carriageway" (or > "width:lanes", if there are marked lanes) also could be used to map this > width directly. > - The width of roadside paths can optionally be specified with > "sidewalk:width" etc. > I agree that 2 could be a reasonable definition for urban areas, what I can see could be brought up against it: the tags should generally apply to the mapped object. As we see a highway=* to include the sidewalks, it would be somehow odd to not include them in width. But I agree, through definition, we could define it to mean only the road (including parking alongside), and we are already pursuing a similar approach with regard to lanes (only car lanes, no bike lanes or sidewalks counted). when there aren't kerb stones, how would you suggest to proceed? (my suggestion: measure from the middle of the wide lateral boundary lines if there are, otherwise measure the paved width, 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 part, rather split the highway in this case of tag the narrow exceptions explicitly while using a medium value for longer stretches). I would definitely not include widths of separated ways (e.g. cycleway=track) in the highway width on the main way. For these, properties like cycleway:width or footway:width could be added (or map the separately, avoiding too many splits of the main highway) Wouldn't it be time to document a recommendation in the Wiki to reduce > further ambiguities? > yes Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
