<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/8/20 12:56 am, Supaplex wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2d9b0a15-ee4d-3d84-7b2d-44829f84c768@riseup.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>I see that I have probably chosen an unfavorable solution to
solve the problem described. Many seem to accept the basic
problem: There is only one qualitative category for all kerbs
with a height of over ~3 cm, although in reality there is a
significant difference.<br>
<br>
I see two alternatives to the proposed solution:<br>
<br>
a) (as suggested in the vote section) Deprecate the category
"raised" and introduce two <i>new</i> values to differentiate
it (eg "heightened" vs. "regular" or "medium" if there is
sematic criticism of "regular")<br>
b) Keep the existing categories, accept that the term "raised"
has so far included both normal and raised kerbs and merely
introduce an explicit tag to distinguish <i>actually</i> raised
kerbs (e.g. "heightened").<br>
<br>
What do you think? Any other or further suggestions?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Rather than use words that are relative to personal perceptions
.. why not use numbers to say what you mean? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> curb:height=under_3_cm</p>
<p>curb:height=over_3_cm</p>
<p> curb:height=3_cm_to_10_cm</p>
<p>curb:height=8_cm_to_15_cm</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Would that be acceptable? It avoids the words and is readily
understood. It could lead to people inserting new values... but
that is always the case, at least with the numbers the new values
would be understood. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>