[Tagging] Correct use of height with kerb
alessandro.sarretta at gmail.com
Sun Jan 12 06:15:38 UTC 2020
the values raised and lowered for a kerb (node) are related to the
vertical gap between sidewalk/crossing and not really to the direction.
Raised means that there is a (more or less) big transition (in the kerb
page  it says >3 cm), while lowered means a smaller transition, and
flush no gap at all. All of this regardless of the direction (up or down).
On 11/01/20 11:08, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I do have a related question, regarding the kerb values lowered|raised
> on a node.
> Assume you find yourself on a pedestrian crossing across a road that
> has an adjacent sidewalk and cycleway on the same side.
> The main carriageway is separated from the (foot-only) sidewalk by a
> kerb and that is separated from the cycleway by another kerb. The
> first kerb is typically raised (as the tag refers to a kerb between
> the road and the sideway, and the latter is always higher than the
> road), but the second kerb (let's assume that the cycle path is
> physically higher than the footway) is it kerb=raised (a step upward
> from the footwalk to the cycleway) or is it kerb=lowered (a step down
> from the cycleway to the sidewalk)? I have come across a number of
> these in the same context that Ale mentioned. I fear my conclusion is
> that the values "lowered" and "raised" on a node "kerb" need to be
> accompanied by direction=forward|backward (like stop and give-way, for
> example) with respect to the "crossing" way. I don't like my
> conclusion, but it seems inevitable.
> (I hope I'm wrong on this last statement)
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 06:49, Alessandro Sarretta
> <alessandro.sarretta at gmail.com <mailto:alessandro.sarretta at gmail.com>>
> Dear all,
> I'm doing some work cleaning the edits we've done around Padova
> for the local plan for the elimination of architectural barriers
> (some references here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3370704).
> The height of kerbs, in this context defined as the nodes at the
> intersection between sidewalks and crossings, is quite an
> important element for the evaluation of accessibility of sidewalks
> and crossings. I think the agreed tagging system is:
> kerb=yes/lowered/raised/flush + kerb:height=<a number><unit>
> as described here
> Around Padova I found some inconsistencies that I'm going to
> correct, but I see similar ones around the world and I'd like to
> ask you if you think they should be corrected, when found.
> Here the questions:
> * should the tag barrier=kerb be always avoided in these cases
> and deleted when found? (
> * is the tag height=* to be always changed into kerb:height=* ?
> Thank you,
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging