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
