On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:46:45 +0100, Josh Doe <[email protected]> wrote:
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:
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
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
