And stupid selection of values, if you are not a native English speaker: A "lowererd" kerb is just a bit raised, but a "raised" kerb is fully raised.
(I know now that this comes from the kerb types "raised kerb" and "lowered kerb") On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 09:40, Volker Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Stupid me, thank you. > Had not read the wiki page. > > > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 07:17, Alessandro Sarretta < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Volker, >> >> the values raised and lowered for a kerb (node) are related to the >> vertical gap between sidewalk/crossing and not really to the direction. >> Raised means that there is a (more or less) big transition (in the kerb >> page [1] it says >3 cm), while lowered means a smaller transition, and >> flush no gap at all. All of this regardless of the direction (up or down). >> >> Ale >> >> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb >> On 11/01/20 11:08, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> I do have a related question, regarding the kerb values lowered|raised on >> a node. >> Assume you find yourself on a pedestrian crossing across a road that has >> an adjacent sidewalk and cycleway on the same side. >> The main carriageway is separated from the (foot-only) sidewalk by a kerb >> and that is separated from the cycleway by another kerb. The first kerb is >> typically raised (as the tag refers to a kerb between the road and the >> sideway, and the latter is always higher than the road), but the second >> kerb (let's assume that the cycle path is physically higher than the >> footway) is it kerb=raised (a step upward from the footwalk to the >> cycleway) or is it kerb=lowered (a step down from the cycleway to the >> sidewalk)? I have come across a number of these in the same context that >> Ale mentioned. I fear my conclusion is that the values "lowered" and >> "raised" on a node "kerb" need to be accompanied by >> direction=forward|backward (like stop and give-way, for example) with >> respect to the "crossing" way. I don't like my conclusion, but it seems >> inevitable. >> (I hope I'm wrong on this last statement) >> >> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 06:49, Alessandro Sarretta < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I'm doing some work cleaning the edits we've done around Padova for the >>> local plan for the elimination of architectural barriers (some references >>> here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3370704). >>> >>> The height of kerbs, in this context defined as the nodes at the >>> intersection between sidewalks and crossings, is quite an important element >>> for the evaluation of accessibility of sidewalks and crossings. I think the >>> agreed tagging system is: >>> >>> kerb=yes/lowered/raised/flush + kerb:height=<a number><unit> >>> >>> as described here >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb#kerb:height.3D.3Cheight.3E.3Cunit.3E >>> >>> Around Padova I found some inconsistencies that I'm going to correct, >>> but I see similar ones around the world and I'd like to ask you if you >>> think they should be corrected, when found. >>> >>> Here the questions: >>> >>> - should the tag barrier=kerb be always avoided in these cases and >>> deleted when found? ( >>> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkerb#Possible_Tagging_Mistakes >>> ) >>> - is the tag height=* to be always changed into kerb:height=* ? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Ale >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing >> [email protected]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
