[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

[Tobias Knerr]

2011-06-22 Josh Doe:
> 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.

I agree with your decision to go for functional classification. However,
I just noticed that it seems there isn't a value for "standard" kerbs?
(One that is neither raised nor lowered?)

-- Tobias Knerr