I wouldn't include parking bays if the kerb is built out around them. Generally I'd measure the running carriageway, but include any central islands.
The road I measured every 10m had widths varying between 7.7m and 9.3m over about 50m, with no change in lane markings. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>wrote: > 2009/8/5 Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com>: > > Interesting - I've measured the widths of most of the main roads in > Oxford, > > mostly at quiet times of day (easy enough with a wheely device - I > wouldn't > > recommend tape). I do kerb-kerb. > > yes, that seems reasonable in urban context. Do you do the same if > there is parking lots along the way? In this case I would probably > measure where there aren't to indicate the width of the way (because > otherwise - I was thinking of putting the tags to the way - you really > would have to split the way every 10 meters). I don't like the idea of > putting the width to nodes that much, as nodes tend to get moved - but > maybe with more width attached to them, this would change and people > get more cautious. What would you measure out of town? > > > My inclination would be to put widths on nodes, since they are measured > at > > points, but that might not be too helpful for renderers. But I don't > think I > > really want to break a way every time I do a measurement (I did one > > particular stretch of road every 10m). > > did you find a lot of differences every 10m? I thought that most > streets remain there width (for the "driving zone"). > > cheers, > Martin >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk