I see that I have probably chosen an unfavorable solution to solve the problem described. Many seem to accept the basic problem: There is only one qualitative category for all kerbs with a height of over ~3 cm, although in reality there is a significant difference.
I see two alternatives to the proposed solution: a) (as suggested in the vote section) Deprecate the category "raised" and introduce two /new/ values to differentiate it (eg "heightened" vs. "regular" or "medium" if there is sematic criticism of "regular") b) Keep the existing categories, accept that the term "raised" has so far included both normal and raised kerbs and merely introduce an explicit tag to distinguish /actually/ raised kerbs (e.g. "heightened"). What do you think? Any other or further suggestions? Alex P.S. The advice to specify the height precisely in cm instead does not lead any further - as discussed in several places -, since precise height information cannot be collected on a large scale and remains optional. It is not without reason that there are qualitative curb categories - just one too few. A typical intersection has about 8 curbs, which I can assess qualitatively with my eyes within some seconds while passing, but I need a few minutes to measure them all with a ruler... Am 21.08.20 um 01:19 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > >> On 21. Aug 2020, at 01:05, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote: >> >> Martin - does that suggest that over 12,000 existing raised kerbs will need >> to be resurveyed? > > that’s how I read it, and there are actually 28.4K raised kerbs affected > (because you have to look at the ways as well). > > Cheers Martin > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
