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
