[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
josh at joshdoe.com
Wed Jun 22 14:22:55 BST 2011
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
I think we're definitely going for functional. The original author used
those height ranges, and I'm not sure if there's any value to mention
something specific like 16cm, so I changed it to ~0cm for flush, ~3cm for
lowered, and >3cm for raised. I've edited the proposal to that effect.
As for yes/no/unknown, I removed the yes value primarily because the
original author had the following definition which didn't make sense to me:
"kerb=yes: There is a kerb of normal height. Can be used on traffic islands
to indicate a physical obstacle or on a crossing to state the kerb hasn't
I used unknown when doing some aerial mapping prior to surveying, to
indicate that I was pretty sure a kerb was there, but couldn't be sure and
certainly couldn't determine the type. As far as I'm concerned unknown and
yes mean the same thing; just because a kerb is there doesn't tell you
anything about accessibility (i.e. it could be raised or flush, and flush is
basically the same as if no kerb was present). I've changed unknown to yes,
but kept the definition, and emphasized that this value should only be used
on a temporary basis. I also put no in, though I don't imagine it would be
used very often.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll gladly take more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging