Hey all,
As already mentioned on this list I intend to add the tag kerb=regular
to explicitly distinguish common standard height kerbs/curbs from
kerb=raised. Proposal, information and further discussion can be found
here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb%3Dregular
For
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:48 PM, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
I assume that if I have a way that runs along the physical location of the
kerb (e.g. because it's a closed way or part of a multi-poly that's used to
define a landuse area) I could tag that way with kerb= to indicate
I assume that if I have a way that runs along the physical location of
the kerb
(e.g. because it's a closed way or part of a multi-poly that's used to
define a
landuse area) I could tag that way with kerb= to indicate the type of
kerb?
I believe that to be an acceptable method. However
However, if someone really wants to tag a highway=* to indicate a kerb is
on the outer edge, it's better to not use the kerb=* key but rather
kerb:left/kerb:right/kerb:both, so there is no confusion.
Ah yes, kerb:both, I didn't think about that. Still pretty new to mapping
and still getting used
Perhaps. I'm ambivalent about this type of usage (i.e. I don't plan to do
this myself, but if someone wants to I'd rather them use these tags rather
than the primary kerb=* key). I'd say we should get more input before adding
kerb:both/left/right, and we should probably keep that as part of an
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://www.kohl-ratingen.de/images/kohl-markierung/z.299.jpg
That's a dropped kerb, which is probably semantically
2011/7/28 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com:
There's been some recent discussion on the talk page, so please review at
least the four sections starting here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/kerb#Height
Open issues as I see it include:
1) Replacing lowered with ramp or
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:15 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
1) lowered is not the same as ramp or dropped.
See here:
http://www.kohl-ratingen.de/images/kohl-markierung/z.299.jpg
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Does the photo represent your notion
of a
2011/7/28 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:15 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
1) lowered is not the same as ramp or dropped.
See here:
http://www.kohl-ratingen.de/images/kohl-markierung/z.299.jpg
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Does the
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.kohl-ratingen.de/images/kohl-markierung/z.299.jpg
That's a dropped kerb, which is probably semantically equivalent to
lowered. But dropped is the standard en-gb term.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:32:54 +0100, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Seth Golub s...@sethoscope.net wrote:
Lowered was used in the original proposal, I'd actually prefer the term
sloped. I think that makes quite a bit more sense than lowered. Opinions?
I
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:46:45 +0100, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
So:
kerb=flush
kerb=lowered
kerb=rolled
kerb=yes
kerb=raised
kerb=flush would mean that there is a kerbstone (with all the
potential for localised puddling, misalignment, settling etc), whereas
kerb=no would mean there's a continuous tarmac surface - the latter
occurs either if someone is trying to make a very smooth transition
between the road and a cycle
2011-06-23 Seth Golub:
It seems that kerb=flush is saying that there is no kerb.
As stated elsewhere, kerb=flush says that there is a kerbstone at the
same level as the surrounding surface. kerb=no says that there is no
kerbstone at all.
lowered seems to mean raised, but not very much. I
Robert Naylor rob...@pobice.co.uk wrote:
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.
In the USA, rural roads, motorways, and some suburban roads have no curb at
all; you
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
I removed the yes and no values, because I couldn't see any utility,
instead offering the unknown value.
I don't think it is a good idea. In fact, the 'yes' value is widely used in
OSM when you don't know the details (e.g.
2011/6/22 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
I removed the yes and no values, because I couldn't see any utility,
instead offering the unknown value.
I don't think it is a good idea. In fact, the 'yes' value is widely used in
OSM
2011-06-22 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2011/6/22 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
I removed the yes and no values, because I couldn't see any utility,
instead offering the unknown value.
I don't think it is a good idea. In fact, the 'yes'
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
One problem I see with these kinds of proposals is that they map very
well to a particular jurisdiction or standard, but will be very hard
to apply elsewhere. Perhaps the distinction of 3cm, =3cm, 3cm is
very common
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
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@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
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 j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
2011-06-22 Josh Doe:
I think we're definitely going for functional. The
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:22:55 +0100, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
wrote:
One problem I see with these kinds of proposals is that they map very
well to a particular jurisdiction or standard, but will be very hard
to apply
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Robert Naylor rob...@pobice.co.uk wrote:
I'm the original author. I was going to bring it up in tagging but I got
behind in mapping collected data, and have been working more recently.
Ah, good to meet you Pobice, nice to know you're still around.
I
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.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging
It seems that kerb=flush is saying that there is no kerb. kerb=no seems
more intuitive, and probably some people will use it no matter what the wiki
says, so why have flush at all?
lowered seems to mean raised, but not very much. I imagine the intent
was lowered compared to the otherwise raised
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@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
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@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
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Seth Golub s...@sethoscope.net wrote:
It seems that kerb=flush is saying that there is no kerb. kerb=no seems
more intuitive, and probably some people will use it no matter what the wiki
says, so why have flush at all?
Flush kerbs are important to note
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
what about introducing a kerb:height ? Implying heights from values
like yes, raised, normal will probably not be very reliable or
This proposal has been around for a while, but I can't seem to find any RFC
message in the archives.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb
I removed the yes and no values, because I couldn't see any utility, instead
offering the unknown value. One question remaining for me is
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
All feedback is welcome.
One problem I see with these kinds of proposals is that they map very
well to a particular jurisdiction or standard, but will be very hard
to apply elsewhere. Perhaps the distinction of 3cm, =3cm, 3cm is
32 matches
Mail list logo
