after 10 years i came back to systematically update/set widths on all line objects.
So i again had a look at the whole definition of width on streets and it seems someone at least tried to pull together what we have. Still - there seems to be a lot of ambiguities in with definition for highways.
I am referring to:
I was under the impression that width defines the usable width of a street for driving. So that all stuff like shoulder, verges, cycle lanes, sidewalks come extra.
To my surprise this was not the case (anymore?). It seems that width defines basically anything flat from side to side. Whether it includes cycle lanes, shoulders, markings on the sides whatever.
I had also used width=* in OSRM profiles to make assumptions on road usability but this now comes up as orders of magnitude more complex. As now to get the real usable driving width one would need to use width (or width:carriageway?) and substract the widths of the shoulders, outer lane/road markings (if exist) for example.
I would have understood the width setting if it would include the complete width of the object represented by this linestring. E.g. including kerb, sidewalk, cycleways etc.
Now it feels really halve-baked as some elements are include, some not, and to get the width of the driveable surface informations are missing line outer road markings etc.
Am i right in my observation? Are there any further documentation on the progress of definition of width? Is anyone working on a better concept?