[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
josh at joshdoe.com
Thu Jun 23 05:46:45 BST 2011
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > what about introducing a kerb:height ? Implying heights from values
> > like "yes", "raised", "normal" will probably not be very reliable or
> > stable as this might vary from country to country and also in
> > different cities/neighbourhoods.
> That's not a bad idea. "kerb=yes" should have some general meaning,
> and if there is a more precise measurement available, store it in
> Btw, I much prefer "kerb=yes" over "kerb=normal", because "*=yes" is
> very widespread in OSM tagging vocabulary.
I suppose that could work, as the vast majority of kerbs are like this. Of
course, we'd expect that where this will actually be mapped, at crossings,
most should be lowered/sloped, so kerb=normal/yes will be relatively rare
(at least that's the hope, because it means the crossing is not wheelchair
> kerb=raised (ie, higher than normal, for a bus/tram stop...)
> Now, since people *will* use kerb=no, how should it be interpreted? I
> would say it would cover all of flush, lowered and rolled (ie,
> everything "better" than kerb=yes)
It would be better to say kerb=no is equivalent to kerb=flush. It can't
cover multiple kerb types, since each has different characteristics for
wheelchairs, bicycles, and pedestrians.
I could go with kerb=yes if others are on board, and I think I'd like to
change lowered to sloped unless there are objections.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging