Re: [Tagging] Correct use of height with kerb

2020-01-12 Thread Volker Schmidt
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 kerb") On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 09:40, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Stupid

Re: [Tagging] Correct use of height with kerb

2020-01-12 Thread Volker Schmidt
Stupid me, thank you. Had not read the wiki page. On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 07:17, Alessandro Sarretta < alessandro.sarre...@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

Re: [Tagging] Correct use of height with kerb

2020-01-11 Thread Alessandro Sarretta
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

Re: [Tagging] Correct use of height with kerb

2020-01-11 Thread Volker Schmidt
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

[Tagging] Correct use of height with kerb

2020-01-10 Thread Alessandro Sarretta
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