I think we can at least add an image tag as a raw data for someone such as wheelchair users or mapillary that may estimate the height automatically in the future :) lowered: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4294717996 raised: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4293918233
Shu Higashi 2018-01-08 18:00 GMT+09:00, Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: >> Maybe there's a good middle ground: a kerb height ranking, in lieu of >> taking out a ruler and/or guessing a true kerb:height value. >> kerb:height=low/medium/high, with corresponding ranges in cm (0-3, 3-10, >> 10+). > > That's actually very similar to mountable/semi-mountable/non-mountable > or wheelchair=yes/limited/no and would lead to the same problems you > described further above. If we want to prevent putting wheelchair > users in categories, I think it's better to give the actual heights. > > > On 7 January 2018 at 21:38, Nick Bolten <nbol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Even if only three out of four wheelchair users were satisfied with >> `mountable`, `semi-mountable` and `non-mountable` this would be a step >> forward, in my opinion. >> >> I would wager that the fraction of wheelchair users covered would be a >> minority - there's a lot of diversity that tends to get lumped into just >> 'wheelchair accessible' and it's really not one-size-fits-all in any way. >> In >> order for two wheelchair users to have the same requirements and >> preferences, they'll need to sync up on all of these things: short-burst >> athleticism, endurance, average speed, age-related compounding factors, >> manual vs. electric chair, wheel traction, wheel width, wheel radius, >> chair >> width, side-to-side stability, comfort level with using streets and >> driveways, etc. Now think of any two random users: how likely are they to >> match on all of those categorizations? >> >> I'm going on a bit too long, but you get the idea. Most of those needs can >> be directly handled with just a few neutral, measurable, on-the-ground >> tags: >> kerb shape + height + width, footpath width + incline, surface tags, etc. >> And all users benefit from those tags - bicyclists will also appreciate >> surface and kerb tags, as will parents using strollers or people hauling >> luggage. And most of these tags are useful in an additive way: one is >> good, >> two is better, etc, etc, and can be queried to figure out where >> information >> is missing and turn it into quests like maproulette. >> >> Let's consider just one common situation: manual wheelchairs tend to have >> larger radius wheels than electric wheelchairs do, which, just due to >> physics, impacts how they handle displacements like curbs. The >> higher-radius >> wheels have an easier time of it due to the angle of approach + extra >> leverage (though the user can become tired doing curb after curb), and >> there >> are a lot of curbs right on the cusp of being doable by electric >> wheelchair >> users. Even just for this one common situation, we have to ignore >> wheelchair=yes, and probably a mountable/semi-mountable/unmountable tag, >> because what's actually dictating access is variation in the curb shape + >> height. >> >> Maybe there's a good middle ground: a kerb height ranking, in lieu of >> taking >> out a ruler and/or guessing a true kerb:height value. >> kerb:height=low/medium/high, with corresponding ranges in cm (0-3, 3-10, >> 10+). >> >>> Besides, I didn't think of these values to be a replacement for >>> kerb:shape, but an addition. >> >> Ah, well I initially misunderstood. But I still think it's better to >> completely drop the idea of overarching 'wheelchair access' tags for >> pedestrian tagging, due to the concerns above. Wheelchair users need >> unambiguous information and we already have ambiguous info in >> wheelchair=yes >> and access=*. >> >> Fundamentally, everyone is trying to answer the question, 'can a >> wheelchair >> user traverse this line/point/area?', and while it's tempting to say 'yes' >> or 'no', the true answer representing the majority of users is, 'it >> depends', which is why we need tags that reflected neutral, measurable >> on-the-ground conditions. >> >>> However, if we want to make the current scheme more usable, it is >>> necessary to also specify the angle of inclination for sloped kerbs (and >>> maybe kerb ramps too). Compare the following two kerbs, which have the >>> same >>> shape, but a different level of accessibility (...) >> >> You're completely right. And while we have the incline=* tag, there's no >> standard for where or how to apply it to a curb interface. Do we tag the >> node itself, and what does it mean of kerb=raised has an incline value? If >> tagging a node with incline=*, how do we figure out the direction of the >> incline, and how much does it matter? Does a kerb=* node imply that a >> footway should be split, and the two ways it connects to should (ideally) >> have separate incline=* tags? I prefer that last option, personally. Plus, >> it would benefit from adding a separate curb ramp tag for a way: all of >> them >> should, ideally, have an incline=* value. >> >> Best, >> >> Nick >> >> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:13 AM Selfish Seahorse >> <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Not, it's not ideal, you are right. It's just an idea to create some >>> order, because the current kerb scheme isn't ideal either. Even if >>> only three out of four wheelchair users were satisfied with >>> `mountable`, `semi-mountable` and `non-mountable` this would be a step >>> forward, in my opinion. Besides, I didn't think of these values to be >>> a replacement for kerb:shape, but an addition. >>> >>> However, if we want to make the current scheme more usable, it is >>> necessary to also specify the angle of inclination for sloped kerbs >>> (and maybe kerb ramps too). Compare the following two kerbs, which >>> have the same shape, but a different level of accessibility: >>> >>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Sloped_kerb.jpg> >>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Kerb-45deg.jpg> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> On 7 January 2018 at 19:15, Nick Bolten <nbol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> * `mountable`: mountable for wheelchairs and vehicles (...) >>> > >>> > While this may seem easier to tag on a first pass, it's not ideal, as >>> > it's >>> > making a broad-brush executive decision about accessibility on behalf >>> > of >>> > others. I'm also not sure how it's different from wheelchair=yes/no >>> > combined >>> > with access=* tags. Describing neutral on-the-ground conditions is >>> > better, >>> > both for accessibility and general use by all mappers/data consumers. >>> > Examples: >>> > >>> > - Athletic manual wheelchair users can mount moderate-height raised >>> > curbs. >>> > - Adventurous manual wheelchair users may want to use driveways as >>> > well, >>> > where it may not be intuitive to always map accessibility, but does >>> > make >>> > sense for a curb interface. >>> > - Most electric wheelchairs can't handle moderate-height raised curbs. >>> > - Souped-up electric wheelchairs can handle even fairly high curbs. >>> > - People with impaired stability may strongly prefer moderate-height >>> > curbs, >>> > but don't care about the shape. >>> > - A white cane user may want to know whether to expect a certain curb >>> > shape >>> > for navigational purposes. >>> > - What about `semi-mountable version 2`, curbs mountable by souped-up >>> > electric wheelchairs but not other vehicles? >>> > >>> > These users can all be accommodated by curb shape and height tags, and >>> > most >>> > can be mostly-accommodated just with curb shape. This is also one of >>> > the >>> > reasons very few wheelchair maps exist: if you state 'here's the places >>> > all >>> > wheelchairs can go' you'll get a lot of very different complaints, both >>> > about not having enough possible routes ('I don't care about curb >>> > ramps, >>> > just tell me where big displacements and driveways are') and also too >>> > many >>> > ('I can't handle 8 cm displacements, and this rolled curb kept me from >>> > making my trip'). >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > >>> > Nick >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 9:15 AM Selfish Seahorse >>> > <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On 29 December 2017 at 01:41, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > kerb:shape=* would be better as it suggests what is to be tagged. >>> >> >>> >> Thus, `kerb=*` values could be replaced with: >>> >> >>> >> * `mountable`: mountable for wheelchairs and vehicles >>> >> * `semi-mountable`: not mountable for wheelchairs but mountable for >>> >> vehicles >>> >> * `non-mountable`: neither mountable for wheelchairs nor vehicles >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Tagging mailing list >>> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Tagging mailing list >>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
