maxwidth is a legal limitation, typically signposted. width is used on barriers as physical width of the passage.
maxwidth:physical is sometimes used to indicate the same concept on roads. width is used to indicate the physical width of the carriageway. It is typically used to indicate that a vehicle with that width is likely to pass the entire length of the way. I am sceptical about the idea of trying to tag the very specific and rare case that the width of a carriageway changes linearly from width1 at the beginning of the way to width2 at the end of the way. What is realistic is that roads have irregular shapes, typically in the context of historic towns. In those case it may make sense to model the carriageway with area:highway=* . On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 20:24, Niels Elgaard Larsen <elga...@agol.dk> wrote: > _ _: > > Node is, I think the best solution, but it also require some changes to > current > > editors: if you move a way, you didn't always look on each of the moved > nodes if > > there is a tag width=* . So editors could automatically handle that by > showing a > > warning like when you move a big number of points or when you move an > object outside > > of your view, saying "Hey ! You are moving a tag with a width attribute, > are you sure > > this attribute will be still valid ?" or something like that... > > > > This information could be crucial for [oversize load] > > (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load > > <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load>) and it's really cool > to see some > > people interested in mapping this ! > > > > After all, I don't think that routing is going to happen immediately for > these types > > of transport, but it's by adding data that can be fed into these > calculators that > > they will appear. > > > It does happen that width is used. I found out the hard way this summer. > > I was driving a van and had put the width of the vehicle in OsmAnd as > 2.05 m. > Going to Oude Vos parking lot I was routed through some very small and > narrow roads > and ended up in a dead end. > > Later I found out that the problem was that > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6525244 > had maxwidth=2. > I believe that OsmAnd treat "width" the same way. > > I have checked with overpass turbo and found a lot of width and maxwidth > values that > look suspicious. > > We should be very careful not to tag width values that are too > conservative. > Even if the asphalt has eroded on a short section of a road so that it is > e.g. 1.9 m > wide, a 2.05m wide car could probably still pass. > > > If there is a port, gate or building passage that it 1.9m wide, it is a > different > matter. But then the 2.05m width of my car is excluding side mirrors. > Including > mirrors it is 2.3 m. > > > -- > Niels Elgaard Larsen > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
