Talk:Key:width:effective

Conflicting naming

Technically at least UK "effective width" refers to the entire roadway / "paved width", including hard strips / shoulder=*

You better directly invent eg width:usable=* Kovposch (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

But width:effective was already being used. How well is it generally received within the community when a key already exists, yet you introduce an additional key that creates ambiguity? Hike&Map (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Almost all are bulk added. The users can change them. https://taghistory.raifer.tech/?#***/width:effective/ Kovposch (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I definitely agree that width:usable is much harder to misunderstand.

"effective" could be ambiguous depending what one would mean with effective, functional width after considering restrictions or conditions that reduce the usable carriageway?

I just created that page exactly for this purpose, to start the discussion

So I guess we're both in agreement - width:usable is more appropriate and less ambiguous

let's see if others in the community join the conversation with arguments Hike&Map (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I asked AI, it disagrees: Ah — for OpenStreetMap specifically, width:effective is the technically correct choice, not width:usable, if you mean the width of the carriageway that vehicles can actually use in flowing traffic. but argues: "One caveat: OSM itself says width:effective is currently rarely used, and its exact measurement boundary can be ambiguous."

I think that's the whole point of "usable" - it's less ambiguous

So even AI agrees usable is less ambiguous (3 votes in favor) Hike&Map (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)