[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Wed Jun 22 05:50:57 BST 2011


On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Josh Doe <josh at joshdoe.com> wrote:
> All feedback is welcome.

One problem I see with these kinds of proposals is that they map very
well to a particular jurisdiction or standard, but will be very hard
to apply elsewhere. Perhaps the distinction of <3cm, =3cm, >3cm is
very common somewhere - but what would you do in an area where the
standard distinction is 2.5cm? Or 4cm? Go and measure every kerb?

So maybe it's better to divide it into two halves: in one part, talk
about the functional aspects (flat, flush, can roll over etc). In
another part, map those functional distinctions onto physical ranges
on a regional basis ("in the eastern states of the US, flush means
...").

Alternatively, just leave the heights as indicative - but make it
clear we map on a functional basis.

Also is your table missing a way to tag kerbs between 3cm and 16cm?
(And lastly, you have 0.03cm instead of 0.03m in one place)

Steve



More information about the Tagging mailing list