On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
