[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Wed Jun 22 12:07:52 BST 2011

2011-06-22 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> 2011/6/22 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Josh Doe <josh at joshdoe.com> wrote:
>>> I removed the yes and no values, because I couldn't see any utility,
>>> instead offering the "unknown" value.
>> I don't think it is a good idea. In fact, the 'yes' value is widely used in
>> OSM when you don't know the details (e.g. aerial imagery survey). For
>> instance, building=yes. You are changing a basic rule of OSM tagging without
>> any improvement.
> I think it does not matter. Why and how would you survey kerbs from
> aerial imagery?

Leaving aerial imagery aside, I also usually know from memory whether or
not there is a kerb, but I'd need to go the crossings again to determine
the kerb's height. So until I get around to revisit them, it would make
sense to just tag kerb=yes.

Currently, the proposal suggests kerb=unknown for this purpose, i.e. to
indicate that *some* sort of kerb is present. In my opinion, that's a
bad value, because it can easily be interpreted as "it is unknown
whether or not there is a kerb" (in fact, I first wrote this reply based
on that assumption, and only then noticed that the proposal was using it

Furthermore, I don't understand at all why the "no" value has been
removed. There are sidewalks that are defined by other separators than a

I therefore suggest to rename kerb=unknown to kerb=yes, and to add
kerb=no back to the proposal.

-- Tobias Knerr

More information about the Tagging mailing list