Proposal talk:Residential narrow

• Don't think that we should replace the "residantial" tag with this one. Perhaps we can use it as an additional tag, but not as replacement. "narrow" is no streettype it's a streetproperty. The problem is, that "narrow" is no fixed value. One person think narrow is about 3 meters, another think it's about 2m. Instead of using narrow you can also add the width of the street. If you don't know it and if there is no way you can get the width, perhaps we can add something like perceived_width=narrow

Agreed, there is no need for new tag. Combination of tags highway=residential and width=* is better solution. This way routing software can adjust route depending on the vehicle. 2 meters is enough for most cars, but even 3 meters is not enough for heavy truck.

At the end you will have to convince people in charge of renderer to support new tag. You can as well convince them to render residential road with width <= 3 differently.

Agreed there is no need, if renderers render a width=narrow. No matter if narrow is <3m, <2.5m, <2m. A highway=primary is not the same in USA and in Togo. A narrow street is narrow in a context. In the villages in the North of Nice (France) it is a street where you can go with no car, but with a Vespa. highway=residential width=narrow should be rendered like highway=residential but thinner. (I have changed tags using templates in the commentaries upper for clarity). FrViPofm 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I also see that this tag is redundant and width=* can be used instead. This should instead be a thing for the rendering where narrow roads width <= 3 are rendered differently. --Kslotte 11:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we able to get attention of render engine people on this? --Kslotte 13:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag Key:narrow could also be used. But the definition of it should then be re-written. --Kslotte 13:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

it's not a replacement

Maybe I didn't correctly express my-self; english is not my native language.

I don't want to replace "residential" but create a new highway tag. Use the word "residential" is to keep usage clear. Sure it's possible to only add an option to the existing "residential" tag, but this option have to render frankly different in that case. "narrow" is maybe relative but it has the advantage to be short and map_features page is there to explain it's about < to 3m and not 2, also 3 meters are not 3 feet ...

I think create a new highway tag is essential, Adding to many option will be to much confusing to simple user, we don't have to afraid him with X lines of code!

By the other hand, I agree with you for the width. "residential" ways are currently >= 3.5M, The width for this new kind of tag has to probably to be =< 2.5M but still keeping relative except if user wish to add an exact with and them authorize him to put width=2m for example.

Maybe we don't need a new tag, but we need new rendering. nevertheless, the simple way is always the best highway=residential_narrow is not the so bad idea you think because anyways real width is always relative. I don't talk about "primary" or "secondary", but "residential".

Your idea: "highway=residential width=narrow should be rendered like highway=residential but thinner" is an good idea too, maybe better than mine.

Please, develop it in the proposal page in concurrence. But rendering have to clearly different from the highway=residential one and not too much near the highway=service one (the same as i did, why not!).

--mk67 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the 2m include parking lanes? Does it include one-way residental areas, which in busy cites could easily be 2m --sargas 23:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we don't need a new tag, but the rendering has to draw thinner (maybe another color) lines if width=* value is less then 2.5m or is set to narrow. --Telegnom 13:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

First:

effectively, the width has to be with a more and a less. Proposal could be between >2m and <3.5m. This tag is not for service ways, just for residential and old cities or villages which can manage vehicles on and at least one, not pedestrian.

Modern cities don't need that kind of tag, excepted if they have some.

I start to figure the tag is not really so needed as it is. perhaps the width=narrow is preferable and for the other proposed option for old cities width=legacy or width=vintage but still associated with highway=residential . In many case, we can't figure exactly the width of a way, we don't always have a meter in the pocket, so a measured width is not the right thing to do. Nevertheless, the goal is to keep users away from "options rain"

For park lanes maybe a same idea with width=parklane in addition of highway=service.

Please, comment.

--mk67 16:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the new proposal, to keep things simple and to get a specific rendering (thinner, see above). Tagging Width=3 (3meters) may be used if we know exactly the width, but who walks around with a meter rod? And width in narrow streets may change constantly between 2 and 4 meters. Narrow=yes is not appropiate, as it should be used specifically for traffic signals (ex. narrow bridge). --Federico Explorador 17:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Terraced houses

Here in Yorkshire there are many blocks of terraced houses with straight residential streets between, often alternating with very narrow streets accessing the backs of the houses. These back streets are not something you'd want to be routed down, so they should be tagged differently than normal residential roads, and should definitely be shown narrower on maps, or perhaps not at all when zoomed out. Currently I'm just using highway=service for these. It would be nice either to have this proposal (if it's appropriate for this case), or perhaps instead use highway=service with service=residential instead. --Geoff 11:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

--mk67 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea and maybe better for all those don't what of a global new tag.

The kind of you tell is that one i'm targeting to. service=residential is perhaps a better proposal, but we still have to care about the render.

Why not in that case an other colour like light brown with a highway service skin?

narrow=yes

Sorry, I just discover this proposal now. In my case, I use something I saw in discussions a long time ago, the tag narrow=yes which can be interpreted as "between 75% to 50% narrower than the default width of this highway type" combined with the usual highway keys. -- Pieren 09:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Voting alternatives

Here a list what we need to vote about (voting hasn't yet started); four different votings:

• Extend narrow=yes the definition to also cover narrow roads.
• Creating a new tag highway=residential_narrow.
• old=yes tag is added if considering an old city narrowed street.
• A disapproval mean that tag width=narrow or width=* in meters is used (closest match).

--Kslotte 11:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)