> 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
I'd say the first picture is a flush kerb followed by a ramp.
On 7 January 2018 at 20:12, Selfish Seahorse
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
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 like the idea of explicitly indicating the presence of a ramp, as they're
specialized infrastructure that isn't exactly the same as just having a
sloped curb interface. Though I would argue that it makes sense for them to
be a linear feature separate from the `kerb` key, as they have non-trivial
If the road and sidewalk have no curb interface, then `kerb=flush` seems
appropriate.
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:15 PM Matej Lieskovský
wrote:
> How does this work with roads raised to the level of the sidewalk?
>
> On 31 Dec 2017 19:43, "Selfish Seahorse"
> wrote:
>
> On 29 December 2017 at 00:
> * `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
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 mountabl
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Matej Lieskovský
wrote:
> I have no idea where you map, but here, >90% of roads never even heard about
> cycleways. For us here, it makes sense to consider cycleway=no to be
> implicit, as the information that someone surveyed it is not worth the extra
> tags. Your
Since these systems are so rare, perhaps it would be interesting to
map using existing railway=* values adding electrified=no and a new
tag such as atmospheric=yes.
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 5. Jan 2018, at 01:51, Fernando Trebien
Pardon me if I expressed myself poorly. This mapper changed both the
route=* tag of the relation and the railway=* tag of all its members
from light_rail to subway.
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
>
> Am 2018-01-04 um 13:32 schrieb Fernando Trebien:
>> A Ger
Hi Fernando,
Am 2018-01-04 um 13:32 schrieb Fernando Trebien:
> A German mapper just changed the rail type of a line [1] in my area
> (southern Brazil) from light_rail to subway.
>
> Here those trains run on the surface (contrary to most subways) and
> have no at-grade intersections with other tr
11 matches
Mail list logo
