[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

Josh Doe josh at joshdoe.com
Wed Jun 22 14:51:56 BST 2011

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:

> 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?)

Ah, I think this may be a regional distinction, and why I was confused about
the mention of "standard" kerbs. "Standard" kerbs to my US (specifically
east coast) context are in fact raised, i.e. they are somewhere between 6-8
inches (15-20cm). If the German/British/Europe "standard" kerb is something
important to define (especially for a functional reason), then we can do so,
but should avoid the word "standard" since that will means something
different at least between the US and other parts of the world. Likewise, if
"raised" means something particular to Europeans then perhaps we can change
that word to something more neutral.

So my question is should we have just flush/lowered/rolled/raised (in order
of increasing inaccessibility, and perhaps changing raised to something
else), or do we need flush/lowered/rolled/"European standard"/raised?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110622/c0182ea5/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list