Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

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

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

> 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 wheelc

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

> 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

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

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

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

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,

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

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

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

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:

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

> * `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

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

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

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

If I understand you right, that would be a case for `kerb=flush`, where the interface between the road and footways has no significant vertical displacement. On Sun, Dec 31, 2017, 1:15 PM Matej Lieskovský wrote: > How does this work with roads raised to the level of the sidewalk? > > On 31 Dec 2

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

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 00:32, Nick Bolten wrote: > That's a really great example of how it may make sense to separate out the > idea of a 'curb ramp' from the curb interface. I mig

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

On 29 December 2017 at 00:32, Nick Bolten wrote: > That's a really great example of how it may make sense to separate out the > idea of a 'curb ramp' from the curb interface. I might have to steal it! Maybe `kerb=ramp`, leaving `kerb=lowered` for kerbs of low height? @Warin: Thanks for the links

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

a 2mm kerb (the last picture) is imho a lowered. I don't see what value added would bring the fact that the angle of these 2mm is square. for me it is necessary to remember the purpose of the tag: accessibility. if all profiles pass this kerb without a problem, it's lowered. the problem is for

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

There are many different kerb shapes http://www.playford.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/SD%20100%20TYPICAL%20RESIDENTIAL%20KERB%20PROFILES.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb#Types_of_curb kerb:shape=* would be better as it suggests what is to be tagged*. * kerb=* is open to any use, kerb=

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

That's a really great example of how it may make sense to separate out the idea of a 'curb ramp' from the curb interface. I might have to steal it! On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 3:12 PM Selfish Seahorse wrote: > On 28 December 2017 at 23:50, Nick Bolten wrote: > > With that said, I agree that there a

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

On 28 December 2017 at 23:50, Nick Bolten wrote: > With that said, I agree that there are opportunities for improving `kerb` > tags. Here are some ideas to toss around: > > - `kerb=square` would seem to be as descriptive as `kerb=raised`, but more > clear. > > - `barrier=kerb` is sometimes used in

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

> The question is: does it make sense to introduce another `kerb` value in order to differentiate between standard high kerbs and very high kerbs at public transport stops? If I understand the question right, it really comes down to what you consider to be a curb. Some transit stops have raised pl

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

I agree that `kerb:height` is more useful than `kerb`. However, `kerb` seems to be a good starting point when mapping many kerbs and you can't measure them all yet, as it gives a rough information whether most wheelchair users can cross the street there or not. The question is: does it make sense

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

I'd use "normal" or "regular", leaving "raised" for "above the norm". Both values are quite rare, but I guess that is because most will simply not tag it. Or (as the wiki discussion suggests) use kerb:height in cm. Looks like that wiki page could use updating... Matej Lieskovský On 28 December 2

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

This kind of info is actually very relevant to all kinds of different pedestrians. There are manual wheelchair users with serious athleticism who are happy with moderate curbs, but can't do tall ones (due to physics - they'd tip before getting over), people with limited mobility who use walkers/can

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

On 28 December 2017 at 20:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I think it makes a difference to many wheelchair users or cyclists or > automobilists or most other vehicles and pedestrians whether the kerb is 12 > or 30 centimeters (assuming that meters was a typo, right?). > > Regarding the tag rai

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

On 29 December 2017 at 05:05, Selfish Seahorse wrote: it doesn't make a difference for wheelchair users if the kerb is 12 or > 30 metres high. > I think it would make a difference to everybody if the kerb is 30 metres high! :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagg

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

sent from a phone > On 28. Dec 2017, at 20:05, Selfish Seahorse wrote: > > I think it makes sense to tag common high kerbs `kerb=raised` too, as > it doesn't make a difference for wheelchair users if the kerb is 12 or > 30 metres high. > > What is your opinion? I think it makes a difference

Re: [Tagging] Kerbs

kerb=raised is a bit subjective, but you can always add kerb:height when in doubt. Another way to look at it is as the shape at the interface: flush = straight on, lowered = approaching linearly at an angle, rolled = rounded, raised = square edge. On Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 12:15 PM Selfish Seahorse w

[Tagging] Kerbs

Hi There are conflicting informations on the wiki[^1] whether common high kerbs (example[^2]) can be tagged `kerb=raised` or if this tag is reserved for very high kerbs at public transport stops. [^1]: [^2]: