Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Aug 2020, at 02:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The point is that a 'normally expected curb' may be a considerable obstacle 
> to a wheelchair person. And the purpose of this tagging is to indicate 
> wheelchair access difficulties. 


wheelchair users are not the only people who might be interested in such 
details, and even for them it will often be interesting whether the non 
lowered/dropped kerb is 12 or 25cm.
Putting the only distinction for kerbs at 0 and 3cm seems a bit shortsighted, 
if you consider that there are also quite high kerbs out there in some spots, 
and that accord t the height these might be obstacles for athletic wheelchair 
users and other people as well.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Warin]

On 2/8/20 5:41 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 2. Aug 2020, at 03:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Much easier to tag the numerical height of the curb as this avoids the 
confusion of words, particularly with different languages, cultures and 
climates.


this would require a lot of measurements, while a few classes of heights could 
generally be determined by looking at it. It also might require splitting the 
kerbs when there a variations of just a few centimeters. While tagging actual 
heights explicitly is fine, it is not a general alternative to tagging lowered 
kerb / higher than normally expected kerb.


The point is that a 'normally expected curb' may be a considerable obstacle to 
a wheelchair person. And the purpose of this tagging is to indicate wheelchair 
access difficulties.

If someone wants to map those variations, let them. Most curb heights are not 
mapped, indeed most curbs are not mapped.
So having someone spend time mapping minor variations may indicate that they 
think this is important.
 
Once the 'regular' curb height is measured then it is a simple matter, for most who are not concerned with minor variations, to estimate curbs of similar height in the same area.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Aug 2020, at 03:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Much easier to tag the numerical height of the curb as this avoids the 
> confusion of words, particularly with different languages, cultures and 
> climates.


this would require a lot of measurements, while a few classes of heights could 
generally be determined by looking at it. It also might require splitting the 
kerbs when there a variations of just a few centimeters. While tagging actual 
heights explicitly is fine, it is not a general alternative to tagging lowered 
kerb / higher than normally expected kerb.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Warin]

On 31/7/20 12:42 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
In Indonesia, Costa Rica, Peru and Mexico, it is common to find 30cm 
kerbs in older neighborhoods. In Nicaragua there were some that were 
at least 45 cm high, in Leon or Granada.


Tropical countries with heavy rainfall often do this to avoid flooding.



Also occurs near desert areas as they get 5 years rain fall in a day or 
two.


Broken Hill has regular (normal, expected) curb heights of 25 cm, where 
as Sydney has 15 cm .. not only are these in the same country but also 
in the same state.



The word 'regular' is a poor choice for this tagging.

What is being tagged is the wheelchair/stroller/wheelbarrow 
accessibility of the curb. That is what should be implied by the tagging 
used.



Much easier to tag the numerical height of the curb as this avoids the 
confusion of words, particularly with different languages, cultures and 
climates.







On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes
mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>>:

when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about
something like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be
considered “raised”

At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to
think about crossing them.



that's why it could be interesting to tag it. If we had a
hierarchy lowered, regular, raised, it would make sense.


In built up areas typical raised kerbs are upto 15cm, being a
sad geek I have just measured the kerb outside, 12cm which is
certainly in my experience normal.



ok, then make it regular: 315

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised - Proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 1. Aug 2020, at 12:36, Supaplex  wrote:
> 
> I wrote a proposal for it: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb%3Dregular
> 
> How should I proceed - can I already set the status to "Proposed"? Do I have 
> to write a separate email for RFC or is this thread sufficient?
> 
> I hope for your comments - greets
> Alex
> 


I would see this email to be an RFC, although it could have been better to 
explicitly include the acronym RFC in the subject of your message, as this is 
what the guidelines state. The procedure for proposal is presented here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised - Proposal

[Supaplex]

I wrote a proposal for it:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb%3Dregular

How should I proceed - can I already set the status to "Proposed"? Do I
have to write a separate email for RFC or is this thread sufficient?

I hope for your comments - greets
Alex


Am 01.08.20 um 09:42 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 1. Aug 2020, at 09:39, Supaplex  wrote:
>>
>> I felt that this list more agreed rather than opposed.
>
> bring it to voting. 
>
>
> Cheers Martin 
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 1. Aug 2020, at 09:39, Supaplex  wrote:
> 
> I felt that this list more agreed rather than opposed.


bring it to voting. 


Cheers Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Supaplex]

There was no change in the OSM database, so the project is not affected.
kerb=regular anyway is already in use but undocumented. Current
wheelchair/mobily projects should anyway consider this existing tagging.
As I described it needs clarity in the differentiation between raised
and regular kerbs and after the discussion here, I felt that this list
more agreed rather than opposed.


Am 01.08.20 um 09:01 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
> Please revert this wiki change.
> The kerb hight values have been used in at least one project documenting
> wheelchair accessibility.
>
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020, 08:53 Supaplex,  wrote:
>
>> As an result of this diskussion (no strong opposition, some general
>> remarks, some endorsement) I added "kerb=regular" to the tagging example
>> list in the wiki and adjusted hight descriptions (with values discussed
>> here). If there is further need for discussion and changes, it could be
>> carried out in the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb
>>
>> Greets, Alex
>>
>>
>> Am 29.07.20 um 20:56 schrieb Supaplex:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including
>> crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity
>> in the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither
>> lowered nor raised) kerbs. "kerb=regular" is already in use but is
>> undocumented and should be explicitly distinguished from "kerb=raised".
>> There is a relevant difference not only for wheelchair users, but also
>> for other mobility groups (cargo bikes, strollers, pedestrians with
>> reduced mobility…).
>>
>> So I propose adding "kerb=regular" to the tagging list in the wiki as
>> well as suitable descriptions for height, use… and an example image. I
>> made a suggestion in the wiki (since there has been no reaction so far I
>> post it 
>> here):https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#kerb.3Dregular_vs._raised_--_add_.22regular.22_example
>>
>> Is there a reason not to add this? Otherwise I’ll do that.
>>
>> Greets, Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 1. Aug 2020, at 09:08, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Please revert this wiki change.
> The kerb hight values have been used in at least one project documenting 
> wheelchair accessibility. 


I have reverted the edits now, please create a proposal for edits like this, 
that significantly change established definitions.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Volker Schmidt]

Please revert this wiki change.
The kerb hight values have been used in at least one project documenting
wheelchair accessibility.

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020, 08:53 Supaplex,  wrote:

> As an result of this diskussion (no strong opposition, some general
> remarks, some endorsement) I added "kerb=regular" to the tagging example
> list in the wiki and adjusted hight descriptions (with values discussed
> here). If there is further need for discussion and changes, it could be
> carried out in the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb
>
> Greets, Alex
>
>
> Am 29.07.20 um 20:56 schrieb Supaplex:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including
> crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity
> in the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither
> lowered nor raised) kerbs. "kerb=regular" is already in use but is
> undocumented and should be explicitly distinguished from "kerb=raised".
> There is a relevant difference not only for wheelchair users, but also
> for other mobility groups (cargo bikes, strollers, pedestrians with
> reduced mobility…).
>
> So I propose adding "kerb=regular" to the tagging list in the wiki as
> well as suitable descriptions for height, use… and an example image. I
> made a suggestion in the wiki (since there has been no reaction so far I
> post it 
> here):https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#kerb.3Dregular_vs._raised_--_add_.22regular.22_example
>
> Is there a reason not to add this? Otherwise I’ll do that.
>
> Greets, Alex
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Supaplex]

As an result of this diskussion (no strong opposition, some general
remarks, some endorsement) I added "kerb=regular" to the tagging example
list in the wiki and adjusted hight descriptions (with values discussed
here). If there is further need for discussion and changes, it could be
carried out in the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb

Greets, Alex


Am 29.07.20 um 20:56 schrieb Supaplex:
> Hey all,
>
> I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including
> crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity
> in the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither
> lowered nor raised) kerbs. "kerb=regular" is already in use but is
> undocumented and should be explicitly distinguished from "kerb=raised".
> There is a relevant difference not only for wheelchair users, but also
> for other mobility groups (cargo bikes, strollers, pedestrians with
> reduced mobility…).
>
> So I propose adding "kerb=regular" to the tagging list in the wiki as
> well as suitable descriptions for height, use… and an example image. I
> made a suggestion in the wiki (since there has been no reaction so far I
> post it here):
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#kerb.3Dregular_vs._raised_--_add_.22regular.22_example
>
> Is there a reason not to add this? Otherwise I’ll do that.
>
> Greets, Alex
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Joseph Eisenberg]

In Indonesia, Costa Rica, Peru and Mexico, it is common to find 30cm kerbs
in older neighborhoods. In Nicaragua there were some that were at least 45
cm high, in Leon or Granada.

Tropical countries with heavy rainfall often do this to avoid flooding.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
> p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:
>
>> when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like
>> 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”
>>
>> At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to think about
>> crossing them.
>>
>
>
> that's why it could be interesting to tag it. If we had a hierarchy
> lowered, regular, raised, it would make sense.
>
>
>>
>> In built up areas typical raised kerbs are upto 15cm, being a sad geek I
>> have just measured the kerb outside, 12cm which is certainly in my
>> experience normal.
>>
>
>
> ok, then make it regular: 315
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:

> when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like
> 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”
>
> At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to think about
> crossing them.
>


that's why it could be interesting to tag it. If we had a hierarchy
lowered, regular, raised, it would make sense.


>
> In built up areas typical raised kerbs are upto 15cm, being a sad geek I
> have just measured the kerb outside, 12cm which is certainly in my
> experience normal.
>


ok, then make it regular: 315

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 20:15 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> > > On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow  > > > wrote:
> > > The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in
> > > height. Your definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or
> > > equal to 10cm
> > 
> > when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something
> > like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”
> 
> You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user,
> there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10
> cm,
> because both are impassable.

Wheelchairs have a large rear wheel so that they can be tilted just so
that they can get over kerbs. They have no problem crossing typical
raised kerbs. 25 cm is a bit excessive for a kerb.

Phil (trigpoint)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-07-30 at 01:45 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height.
> > Your definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to
> > 10cm
> 
> when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something
> like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”

That sounds more like a sunken wall than a kerb :)

At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to think about
crossing them.

In built up areas typical raised kerbs are upto 15cm, being a sad geek
I have just measured the kerb outside, 12cm which is certainly in my
experience normal.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Oliver Simmons]

Agreed that is beyond being a curb, it is a wall of sorts.
For it to be a curb in my opinion, it should be passable by a fit
(non-disabled) person easily,
Once it becomes too tall to pass it is a wall

On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 01:17 Jarek Piórkowski,  wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> >> On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
> >> The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your
> definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm
> >
> > when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like
> 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”
>
> You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user,
> there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10 cm,
> because both are impassable.
>
> > I agree that introducing regular kerbs would only make sense if the
> raised kerb would change its definition (or be deprecated).
> >
> > eg this is pretty raised
> >
> http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/29/article-2380778-1B0CC26E05DC-458_634x386.jpg
>
> I would suggest that's a low retaining wall
>
> --Jarek
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Jul 2020, at 02:17, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
> 
> You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user,
> there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10 cm,
> because both are impassable.


wheelchair users are not the only addressee of kerb tags, and not every 
wheelchair user has a problem with a 4 cm kerb. Just 2 levels of kerbs, up to 
3cm and everything above, are clearly leading to a lack of basic information 
(people are rarely measuring the precise height, which would be an alternative).

IMHO there would be room for a regular kerb - if there wasn’t the “raised kerb” 
at 31mm. True raised kerbs may pose an obstacle even to pedestrians, 
particularly to those with reduced mobility. On the other hand they might 
provide more safety to pedestrians. Or might facilitate boarding and off 
boarding public transport vehicles.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>> On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow  wrote:
>> The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your 
>> definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm
>
> when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like 
> 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”

You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user,
there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10 cm,
because both are impassable.

> I agree that introducing regular kerbs would only make sense if the raised 
> kerb would change its definition (or be deprecated).
>
> eg this is pretty raised
> http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/29/article-2380778-1B0CC26E05DC-458_634x386.jpg

I would suggest that's a low retaining wall

--Jarek

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[António Madeira]

Às 20:45 de 29/07/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:


eg this is pretty raised
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/29/article-2380778-1B0CC26E05DC-458_634x386.jpg

Cheers Martin




lol

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your 
> definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm


when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like 
25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”

I agree that introducing regular kerbs would only make sense if the raised kerb 
would change its definition (or be deprecated).

eg this is pretty raised 
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/29/article-2380778-1B0CC26E05DC-458_634x386.jpg

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:57 AM Supaplex  wrote:

> I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including
> crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity in
> the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither lowered
> nor raised) kerbs. "kerb=regular" is already in use but is undocumented and
> should be explicitly distinguished from "kerb=raised". There is a relevant
> difference not only for wheelchair users, but also for other mobility
> groups (cargo bikes, strollers, pedestrians with reduced mobility…).
>
The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your
definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm.  A
raised kerb is a barrier to wheelchair and others with mobility issues just
as one that is 10cm or higher. I'm not sure what is gained by adding
another classification since the ability to add kerb:height already exist.
I can see adding a comment to the wiki page stating that the typical height
of a raised kerb  is around 10cm - assuming there is some research stating
that.

> So I propose adding "kerb=regular" to the tagging list in the wiki as well
> as suitable descriptions for height, use… and an example image. I made a
> suggestion in the wiki (since there has been no reaction so far I post it
> here):
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#kerb.3Dregular_vs._raised_--_add_.22regular.22_example
>
> Is there a reason not to add this? Otherwise I’ll do that.
>
>
> My recommendation would be not to add a new classification that will only
confuse mappers and data consumers.

Best,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Volker Schmidt]

Problem: what is "regular" ?
(and hence: what is "raised" and "lowered" ?)

See for example:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-standard-curb-height-in-the-United-States-and-how-is-that-height-decided-on



On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 20:58, Supaplex  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including
> crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity in
> the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither lowered
> nor raised) kerbs. "kerb=regular" is already in use but is undocumented and
> should be explicitly distinguished from "kerb=raised". There is a relevant
> difference not only for wheelchair users, but also for other mobility
> groups (cargo bikes, strollers, pedestrians with reduced mobility…).
>
> So I propose adding "kerb=regular" to the tagging list in the wiki as well
> as suitable descriptions for height, use… and an example image. I made a
> suggestion in the wiki (since there has been no reaction so far I post it
> here):
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#kerb.3Dregular_vs._raised_--_add_.22regular.22_example
>
> Is there a reason not to add this? Otherwise I’ll do that.
>
> Greets, Alex
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging