Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 the type of kerb? I believe that to be an acceptable method. However where footways/paths cross the kerb, you should also add a kerb=* tag to the intersection node, because it's asking a lot of data consumers to check every intersecting way for the kerb=* tag. In that case, how should the type of kerb shown in this image be tagged? https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ZazzZqW8w5U/TkNH_duXp5I/AEs/kwDNJFxO9BE/s800/IMG_20110806_170811.jpg From the picture it appears to be kerb=rolled, that is traversable by vehicles and bicycles, but not wheelchairs. How should a stormwater drain be tagged? https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-gD6RfYExBTc/TkNNqT-MNuI/AFI/gqh2ROwDkNQ/s800/IMG_20110811_132316.jpg You could use kerb=normal (a value being discussed) to indicate it is not accessible to vehicles (car/bike/wheelchair). Since I can't find a tag for stormwater drains, perhaps just add a note (or propose a new tag :). I'd say it should be tagged both as a kerb and a stormwater drain. And how should the place where a footpath crosses onto the road be tagged? https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ML8g03AXppA/TkNO5KLLIeI/AFY/O42YukZE_EY/s800/IMG_20110811_132337.jpg This would be kerb=dropped (being discussed to replace the kerb=lowered value), as it is accessible to bikes/wheelchairs. -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 where footways/paths cross the kerb, you should also add a kerb=* tag to the intersection node, because it's asking a lot of data consumers to check every intersecting way for the kerb=* tag. Tagging the nodes makes perfect sense in this case and was already in the kerb proposal, so that goes pretty much without saying. I've been thinking a bit more about tagging ways. In my case, I mostly have ways along the physical location of the kerb as I use them as the border of landuse areas, but should it also be allowed to tag them on highway=* ways? The assumption would be that if a way has both the highway and the kerb tag that the way does not represent the physical location of the kerb, but the kerb is at the outer edge (exact location given implicitly by the width tag on the highway, undetermined if not present) of the highway. In this case, kerb:left=* and kerb:right=* should be allowed if the kerb is different on the 2 sides of the highway. Cheers, Thorsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 to the tagging patterns. So would it make sense to add this usage (kerb:both, :left, :right) to the Applies to section at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb ? Cheers, Thorsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 secondary proposal, if someone wishes to do use those keys. Well, the primary reason I see for these tags would be if there are highways that have been mapped using e.g. gps tracks for which no detailed enough imagery is available to trace the exact position of the kerb. In that case I think it would make sense to tag any observations about the kerb that were made during generation of the gps track on the highway itself. If more detailed imagery becomes available in the future that allows tracing the exact position of the kerb the tags can be moved over. This would preserve the information collected when the gps track was generated which I think is quite important as you can't generally recognize the type of kerb even from highly detailed imagery. Does anyone else have an opinion about this? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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? In that case, how should the type of kerb shown in this image be tagged? https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ZazzZqW8w5U/TkNH_duXp5I/AEs/kwDNJFxO9BE/s800/IMG_20110806_170811.jpg How should a stormwater drain be tagged? https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-gD6RfYExBTc/TkNNqT-MNuI/AFI/gqh2ROwDkNQ/s800/IMG_20110811_132316.jpg And how should the place where a footpath crosses onto the road be tagged? https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ML8g03AXppA/TkNO5KLLIeI/AFY/O42YukZE_EY/s800/IMG_20110811_132337.jpg -Original Message- From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 29 July 2011 6:36 AM 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 equivalent to lowered. But dropped is the standard en-gb term. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 dropped 2) Replacing raised with normal and bus 3) Units for optional kerb:height 1) lowered is not the same as ramp or dropped. See here: http://www.kohl-ratingen.de/images/kohl-markierung/z.299.jpg 2) raised is not the same as normal (and normal might differ a lot from place to place, I suggest to actually put the effective height) 3) Units in osm are as specified, if omitted will often be interpreted as meters cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 lowered, ramp(ed), or dropped kerb? To me they're all functionally equivalent, meaning they are wheelchair accessible and have a slight (~3cm) abrupt change in height and/or a ramp/slope between surfaces of two different heights (typically a sidewalk and a street). 2) raised is not the same as normal (and normal might differ a lot from place to place, I suggest to actually put the effective height) I'd suggest reading the talk page, as I mentioned that the UK raised is equivalent to the US normal. And adding heights are impractical for most people, though it is an option with kerb:height. Also if you read back in this list discussion (Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:27 AM) I talked about how a single height is not sufficient to describe a kerb, but you must also consider the design (e.g. slope). That's why it's best to stick to functional definitions (i.e. wheelchair accessible). 3) Units in osm are as specified, if omitted will often be interpreted as meters Sounds good to me. -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 photo represent your notion of a lowered, ramp(ed), or dropped kerb? To me they're all functionally equivalent, meaning they are wheelchair accessible and have a slight (~3cm) abrupt change in height and/or a ramp/slope between surfaces of two different heights (typically a sidewalk and a street). I put this as an example for a lowered kerb, but I have to apologize, I guess it would actually be called a dropped kerb in the UK, right? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 equivalent to lowered. But dropped is the standard en-gb term. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 preferred lowered as slopped doesn't describe which way it slopes, it could actually easily slope up higher than usual. It'd be a crazy thing to do at a crossing - but then I have seen the council do some crazy thing's in the past. It could also be potentially mistaken for the rolled kerbs. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 (ie, higher than normal, for a bus/tram stop...) Now, since people *will* use kerb=no, how should it be interpreted? I would say it would cover all of flush, lowered and rolled (ie, everything better than kerb=yes) It would be better to say kerb=no is equivalent to kerb=flush. It can't cover multiple kerb types, since each has different characteristics for wheelchairs, bicycles, and pedestrians. I could go with kerb=yes if others are on board, and I think I'd like to change lowered to sloped unless there are objections. -Josh 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. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 track, or if the pavement/sidewalk is only delineated by a painted line (you get this on narrow village roads, sometimes) the normal UK term for a lowered kerb is dropped ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 imagine the intent was lowered compared to the otherwise raised sidewalk, but all the other values are relative to the road. The original intent of the proposal, as I read it, was: lowered = lowered compared to the normal kerb height raised = raised compared to the normal kerb height For me as a German, this seems perfectly logical, because we use the terms abgesenkter Bordstein (lowered kerb) and erhöhter Bordstein (raised kerb) in exactly that way. Now, it seems that some native speakers (not all, though [1]) consider normal kerbs raised, and are completely confused about the originally suggested values as a consequence. -- Tobias Knerr [1] http://www.southglos.gov.uk/NR/exeres/efb6adfb-b0b4-4f00-a185-73f4dcf5197d ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 simply have a point at which the pavement stops, often with a graveled shoulder extending a little further. This situation would logically be mapped as kerb=no. I have seen flush curbs as well, presumably where a road has been repaved multiple times without milling away the old pavement. From a purely functional view, this is the same thing as having no curb, and is likely to be paved over the next time the road is resurfaced. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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. aerial imagery survey). For instance, building=yes. You are changing a basic rule of OSM tagging without any improvement. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 when you don't know the details (e.g. aerial imagery survey). For instance, building=yes. You are changing a basic rule of OSM tagging without any improvement. I think it does not matter. Why and how would you survey kerbs from aerial imagery? While yes is widely used in OSM for many features, in the kontext of kerbs (with the suggested values raised and lowered) it makes as much sense as highway=yes (there is indeed 105 of them). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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' value is widely used in OSM when you don't know the details (e.g. aerial imagery survey). For instance, building=yes. You are changing a basic rule of OSM tagging without any improvement. I think it does not matter. Why and how would you survey kerbs from aerial imagery? Leaving aerial imagery aside, I also usually know from memory whether or not there is a kerb, but I'd need to go the crossings again to determine the kerb's height. So until I get around to revisit them, it would make sense to just tag kerb=yes. Currently, the proposal suggests kerb=unknown for this purpose, i.e. to indicate that *some* sort of kerb is present. In my opinion, that's a bad value, because it can easily be interpreted as it is unknown whether or not there is a kerb (in fact, I first wrote this reply based on that assumption, and only then noticed that the proposal was using it differently). Furthermore, I don't understand at all why the no value has been removed. There are sidewalks that are defined by other separators than a kerb. I therefore suggest to rename kerb=unknown to kerb=yes, and to add kerb=no back to the proposal. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 somewhere - but what would you do in an area where the standard distinction is 2.5cm? Or 4cm? Go and measure every kerb? So maybe it's better to divide it into two halves: in one part, talk about the functional aspects (flat, flush, can roll over etc). In another part, map those functional distinctions onto physical ranges on a regional basis (in the eastern states of the US, flush means ...). Alternatively, just leave the heights as indicative - but make it clear we map on a functional basis. Also is your table missing a way to tag kerbs between 3cm and 16cm? (And lastly, you have 0.03cm instead of 0.03m in one place) 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 that effect. As for yes/no/unknown, I removed the yes value primarily because the original author had the following definition which didn't make sense to me: kerb=yes: There is a kerb of normal height. Can be used on traffic islands to indicate a physical obstacle or on a crossing to state the kerb hasn't been lowered. I used unknown when doing some aerial mapping prior to surveying, to indicate that I was pretty sure a kerb was there, but couldn't be sure and certainly couldn't determine the type. As far as I'm concerned unknown and yes mean the same thing; just because a kerb is there doesn't tell you anything about accessibility (i.e. it could be raised or flush, and flush is basically the same as if no kerb was present). I've changed unknown to yes, but kept the definition, and emphasized that this value should only be used on a temporary basis. I also put no in, though I don't imagine it would be used very often. Thanks for the feedback, I'll gladly take more. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 that effect. I agree with your decision to go for functional classification. However, I just noticed that it seems there isn't a value for standard kerbs? (One that is neither raised nor lowered?) -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 for flush, ~3cm for lowered, and 3cm for raised. I've edited the proposal to that effect. I agree with your decision to go for functional classification. However, I just noticed that it seems there isn't a value for standard kerbs? (One that is neither raised nor lowered?) Ah, I think this may be a regional distinction, and why I was confused about the mention of standard kerbs. Standard kerbs to my US (specifically east coast) context are in fact raised, i.e. they are somewhere between 6-8 inches (15-20cm). If the German/British/Europe standard kerb is something important to define (especially for a functional reason), then we can do so, but should avoid the word standard since that will means something different at least between the US and other parts of the world. Likewise, if raised means something particular to Europeans then perhaps we can change that word to something more neutral. So my question is should we have just flush/lowered/rolled/raised (in order of increasing inaccessibility, and perhaps changing raised to something else), or do we need flush/lowered/rolled/European standard/raised? Thanks, -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 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 that effect. I agree with your decision to go for functional classification. However, I just noticed that it seems there isn't a value for standard kerbs? (One that is neither raised nor lowered?) Ah, I think this may be a regional distinction, and why I was confused about the mention of standard kerbs. Standard kerbs to my US (specifically east coast) context are in fact raised, i.e. they are somewhere between 6-8 inches (15-20cm). If the German/British/Europe standard kerb is something important to define (especially for a functional reason), then we can do so, but should avoid the word standard since that will means something different at least between the US and other parts of the world. Likewise, if raised means something particular to Europeans then perhaps we can change that word to something more neutral. So my question is should we have just flush/lowered/rolled/raised (in order of increasing inaccessibility, and perhaps changing raised to something else), or do we need flush/lowered/rolled/European standard/raised? Thanks, -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 elsewhere. Perhaps the distinction of 3cm, =3cm, 3cm is very common somewhere - but what would you do in an area where the standard distinction is 2.5cm? Or 4cm? Go and measure every kerb? So maybe it's better to divide it into two halves: in one part, talk about the functional aspects (flat, flush, can roll over etc). In another part, map those functional distinctions onto physical ranges on a regional basis (in the eastern states of the US, flush means ...). Alternatively, just leave the heights as indicative - but make it clear we map on a functional basis. Also is your table missing a way to tag kerbs between 3cm and 16cm? (And lastly, you have 0.03cm instead of 0.03m in one place) 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 that effect. 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. I originally started with functional values, but as a compromise to a few people suggesting that we should use just a measurement I added a approx height range for each value. I think we need to re-add a kerb=normal in to replace the original kerb=yes. It possibly could be useful to mark if a traffic island is raised or not, or if a kerb separates say a cycle lane from a road. It ranges is possible anything above 0.03m to 0.16 Also raised needs to be changed back to ~0.16m as it was intend to indicate raised kerbs for bus stops etc. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 originally started with functional values, but as a compromise to a few people suggesting that we should use just a measurement I added a approx height range for each value. I think we need to re-add a kerb=normal in to replace the original kerb=yes. It possibly could be useful to mark if a traffic island is raised or not, or if a kerb separates say a cycle lane from a road. It ranges is possible anything above 0.03m to 0.16 Also raised needs to be changed back to ~0.16m as it was intend to indicate raised kerbs for bus stops etc. Keep in mind that we need to accommodate an international audience. I'm only speaking from a US (or even east coast) perspective, but the kerbs I'm familiar with include: * By far the most common are ones which run along the majority of streets, typically 15-20cm (6-8in) in height. At older crossings (before accessibility requirements entered law), it is common to see this type of kerb. I've been tagging these as kerb=raised. * At more recent crossings sloped curbs (also called curb cuts) are common, which slope gradually from the sidewalk to the street. I've been tagging these as kerb=lowered. * At islands/medians, it is common for there to be no raised portion at all, but rather the median/island is cut out. I've been tagging these as kerb=flush. I say all this because kerb=normal to me means those kerbs that are 15-20cm, and so in my eyes it's hard to see the distinction between this and kerb=raised. If kerb=raised means something special to those in the UK or Europe, perhaps we should avoid using that term. Here's a possible set of values that *might* satisfy at least US and European needs: yes = as it is now, some sort of kerb exists, but hasn't been identified particularly yet flush = as it is now, no height change at all (cut through a median/island), suitable for foot/bicycle/wheelchair/etc lowered = as it is now, gradual change suitable for wheelchairs (as well as foot/bicycle) rolled = as it is now, enough of a height change to be unsuitable for wheelchair access, but suitable for foot/bicycle normal = unsuitable for wheelchair, difficult for bicycle/mobility impaired, anything above 3cm bus = specifically at a height intended for use with buses (whatever height is appropriate in a given country) This way we avoid the ambiguous kerb=raised, but satisfy the needs of some to map kerbs intended for buses. -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 sidewalk, but all the other values are relative to the road. Instead it implies lower than the road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 cities/neighbourhoods. That's not a bad idea. kerb=yes should have some general meaning, and if there is a more precise measurement available, store it in kerb:height= Btw, I much prefer kerb=yes over kerb=normal, because *=yes is very widespread in OSM tagging vocabulary. So: kerb=flush kerb=lowered kerb=rolled kerb=yes kerb=raised (ie, higher than normal, for a bus/tram stop...) Now, since people *will* use kerb=no, how should it be interpreted? I would say it would cover all of flush, lowered and rolled (ie, everything better than kerb=yes) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 cities/neighbourhoods. That could be an option, though there is more to a kerb than just it's height, but also it's design. To really capture the detail you'd need the height of the start of the (sloped) kerb above the roadway, the final height (at the sidewalk), and the run. From this you can get the slope, (rise over run). I think the wheelchair routing project tried/tries to capture this sort of detail, but it's far too detailed for most mappers. So even if you tag the height with kerb:height=15 cm, this doesn't tell you whether it's wheelchair accessible or not. If it's a hard edge (right angle) then it's definitely not, but if it's sloped over a distance then it may be accessible. Point is you can't tell from height alone, but need to at least know about the design of the kerb. I think it's better to focus on functional characteristics, i.e. wheelchair/bicycle accessible or suitable for buses or a warning to the blind (flush kerbs). -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 especially for the blind, as they don't have a sudden or even gradual change in height to let them know they're about to cross a road. lowered seems to mean raised, but not very much. I imagine the intent was lowered compared to the otherwise raised sidewalk, but all the other values are relative to the road. Instead it implies lower than the road. 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? -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 stable as this might vary from country to country and also in different cities/neighbourhoods. That's not a bad idea. kerb=yes should have some general meaning, and if there is a more precise measurement available, store it in kerb:height= Btw, I much prefer kerb=yes over kerb=normal, because *=yes is very widespread in OSM tagging vocabulary. I suppose that could work, as the vast majority of kerbs are like this. Of course, we'd expect that where this will actually be mapped, at crossings, most should be lowered/sloped, so kerb=normal/yes will be relatively rare (at least that's the hope, because it means the crossing is not wheelchair accessible). So: kerb=flush kerb=lowered kerb=rolled kerb=yes kerb=raised (ie, higher than normal, for a bus/tram stop...) Now, since people *will* use kerb=no, how should it be interpreted? I would say it would cover all of flush, lowered and rolled (ie, everything better than kerb=yes) It would be better to say kerb=no is equivalent to kerb=flush. It can't cover multiple kerb types, since each has different characteristics for wheelchairs, bicycles, and pedestrians. I could go with kerb=yes if others are on board, and I think I'd like to change lowered to sloped unless there are objections. -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
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 very common somewhere - but what would you do in an area where the standard distinction is 2.5cm? Or 4cm? Go and measure every kerb? So maybe it's better to divide it into two halves: in one part, talk about the functional aspects (flat, flush, can roll over etc). In another part, map those functional distinctions onto physical ranges on a regional basis (in the eastern states of the US, flush means ...). Alternatively, just leave the heights as indicative - but make it clear we map on a functional basis. Also is your table missing a way to tag kerbs between 3cm and 16cm? (And lastly, you have 0.03cm instead of 0.03m in one place) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
