[Tagging] Correct use of height with kerb

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Sun Jan 12 13:16:36 UTC 2020

And stupid selection of values, if you are not a native English speaker:

A "lowererd" kerb is just a bit raised, but a "raised" kerb is fully raised.

(I know now that  this comes from the kerb types "raised kerb" and "lowered

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 09:40, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:

> Stupid me, thank you.
> Had not read the wiki page.
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 07:17, Alessandro Sarretta <
> alessandro.sarretta at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Volker,
>> 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 [1] 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).
>> Ale
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb
>> 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> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb#kerb:height.3D.3Cheight.3E.3Cunit.3E
>>> 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? (
>>>    https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkerb#Possible_Tagging_Mistakes
>>>    )
>>>    - is the tag height=* to be always changed into kerb:height=* ?
>>> Thank you,
>>> Ale
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200112/a75037c1/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list