[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

[Richard Mann]

Urban normal in the UK is 100-120mm. Raised (at eg bus stops) is about 160-200mm

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Josh Doe <josh at joshdoe.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> -Josh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>