[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

Robert Naylor robert at pobice.co.uk
Thu Jun 23 09:16:17 BST 2011


On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:46:45 +0100, Josh Doe <josh at joshdoe.com> wrote:

> 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:
>>
>> So:
>>
>> kerb=flush
>> kerb=lowered
>> kerb=rolled
>> kerb=yes
>> 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.
>
> -Josh

The problem I have with using kerb=no for kerb=flush is that there is  
actually a kerb stone still - eg:  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:P1210669.JPG.



More information about the Tagging mailing list