|Proposal status:||Rejected (inactive)|
|Definition:||Common standard height kerbs that are neither lowered nor raised.|
There is a lack of clarity in the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither lowered nor raised) kerbs. It seems that a "regular" or "normal" category was contemplated in the original kerb proposal, but it is not documented. There is currently only one documented tag for kerbs with a height of more than 3 centimeters but there is a relevant difference not only for wheelchair users, but also for other mobility groups:
- e.g. people with walking frames/rollator can pass regular kerbs more easy than raised ones
- some wheelchair users might pass regular kerbs (but don't pass raised kerbs)
- people/vehicle with strollers or trailers want to avoid raised kerbs, but not regular ones
- regular or raised kerbs in general lead to different accessibilities or routing penalties, also depending on the type of vehicle that is used (e.g. different bike types like racing / trekking / cargo bike...)
In certain situations, raised kerbs (in contrast to regular kerbs) can even be a mobility aid, especially when tagged at public transport platforms.
This difference should be reflected in the categories of the key without having to enter exact specifications with kerb:height=*. kerb:height=* can be used to indicate the exact height but is much more difficult to determine (especially in large-scale surveys) and (therefore) rarely used.
Common standard heights are arround 10-15 cm (4-6 inch, see e.g. EN oder DE Wikipedia). Of course there are regional deviations and other "local norms", but usually for a specific purpose (such as flood prevention).
Values in use related to this proposal:
Other most common/documented values:
In crossing and intersection situations (that are currently the main goal of kerb tagging) regular kerbs are common on older intersections/crossings or at crossings that were not designed according to accessibility aspects. An example image is shown below.
I don't know of any maps who render kerbs. In surveys I used symbols like _ (flush), ◡ (lowered), ◠ (regular), ^ (raised).
I propose to add this line to the kerb value list:
|Value||Typical height||Typical use||Description||Example|
|regular||~10-15 cm||Standard kerbs, (older) crossings with reduced accessibility||Common standard height. Prevents wheelchairs from crossing and represents a barrier for bicycles, strollers, etc. To be found at older intersections or at intersections that were not designed according to accessibility aspects.|
In this context, the description for the "raised" value should be adapted:
- The value for raised kerbs accordingly needs to set to >15 cm.
- The note "At least in the US, this is also the most common kerb at footway crossings before recent accessibility regulations came into existence. (Note: may be considered normal or yes pending discussion.)" seems outdated/solved in this case and should be removed.
- wheelchair=no should only be implied, if not part of a public transport platform.
|Value||Typical height||Typical use||Description||Example|
|raised||>15 cm||Bus stops & older kerbs||Raised above the norm, sufficiently to prevent traversal by wheelchairs, as well as to impede bicycles. Typical at bus stops to provide at-level access on and off buses.
Note that the primary feature of Kassel kerbs, used at bus stops, is contouring to alleviate tyre rubbing when buses stop (not having a raised level), which is not specifically mapped.
Aside from the general method, this can also be added to the highway=bus_stop node or platform node/way. Otherwise implies wheelchair=no, and may be used to increase the cost of travelling over this kerb by bicycle.
In the distinction between lowered and regular kerbs, I would not list fixed values (like "0-3 cm", "3-15 cm") but keep the flexible "~" notation for typical heights. Quote from the current tagging introduction: "Keep in mind that the heights given are only indicative, choice of a particular value should depend only on functional considerations."
The topic was discussed on the Tagging Mailing List with the result of this proposal.
Please comment on the discussion page.
- I oppose this proposal. (1) "regular" is ill-defined (2) the proposal redefines the existing value "raised" --voschix (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Regular has no specific meaning, one persons regular is another persons large --Locator (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2020This vote was added incorrectly to the Cheat sheet section and was moved here by --ZeiP (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. This seems very vague: "regular" stops wheelchairs and is a barrier to bicycles, "raised" stops wheelchairs and impedes bicycles. IMO this reads as if raised is more bicycle friendly than "regular". "regular" can also be seen as suggesting uniformity along a length, which does not seem to be aim here. --InsertUser (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Vague terminology. If you need more precision than "presents an impediment to wheels", tag the actual height. --Carnildo (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. While I agree that just 2 different height classes (greater and lower than 3,5cm) are not sufficient, this is not the way to do it (redefine raised). We should introduce 2 new values and deprecate „raised“ —Dieterdreist (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. This is a long-overdue distinction between two clearly separate classes of kerbs. Measuring and tagging actual heights is clearly not going to work at scale. The 'raised' value is already strongly associated with higher-than-normal kerbs (both due to the implications of the word, the image used to document it, and the definition as "raised above the norm"), and was so from the earliest versions of the original proposal. --Tordanik 07:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The word 'regular' is a poor choice and will be taken as the 'usual' local value. Best to use the height=*, it can be used 'at scale' in the same way as the value 'regular'. --Warin61 (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Adding height is always possible in addition, but I agree with Tordanik that it is unlikely to happen on a bigger scale. —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. "Common standard height" "~10-15 cm" - are you sure? Maybe in your specific area it is true, but tags are used worldwide. vote will not change of kerb=raised already tagged. If you think that kerb=raised is ill-defined/wrong then you should deprecate it rather than to redefine it. est_height=10-15 cm would be far better. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I do understand the need to distinguish between flush, normal and higher kerbs but think the proposed wording is not defining them well. Accessibility needs are clearly outlined with good examples. However tags are being used world wide and one countries regular can be another countries high. I think the proposal should go into the direction of kerb:height=[goup or dimension] --ConsEbt (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Even after reading the proposal, I don't really understand what "neither lowered nor raised" means and I feel this will be equally confusing to mappers, especially with so many location-specific standards. This seems to, in practice, simply rename "raised" to "regular". I intuitively understand "raised", "lowered", and "flush". And if there was a "regular" value, I would simply use it instead of "raised", which would imply some sort of extra-tall curb that one doesn't really see everyday. So I think the proposed wording is confusing and the distinctions between raised curbs should really be done with a height tag or extra accessibility tags. --HellMap (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. It's a good idea to make the distinction between standard, elevated and lowered but by redefining the value for raised, you miss your goal (see discussion) --Nospam2005 (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. This proposal would re-define the existing kerb=raised tag, and there is not process to deal with the fact that if this was implemented we'd have no way of knowing which kerb=raised values were using the old definition and which were using the new definition. I think it would be useful to be able to distinguish 'normal' height kerbs from even higher ones, and would in principle support a proposal to do this. However, such a proposal needs a way to handle the existing kerb=raised tags. One could either propose a mass-re-tagging of kerb=raised to e.g. kerb=regular_or_raised before introducing the new tag, or one could introduce two new values (e.g. kerb=regular and kerb=high) with kerb=raised being deprecated but keeping its original meaning while it's phased out. Rjw62 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I agree that a distinction should be made. Even though the proposal is not perfect, I think it's better to adjust it than to deny the change. See my full comment at Discussion. --Matheusgomesms (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. While I don't see a lot of value for distinguishing between 3-15 and over 15cm kerbs, I accept that it may be useful for some consumers. However, as I don't think there is a way to gracefully migrate the currently mapped items to this scheme, I must vote no. Deprecating kerb=raised, and introducing two other values (e.g. regular, overheight?) might work better. --Gileri (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. As already said, while I fully agree with the accessibility aspect of it, I'd rather use height=* than a possibly confusing tag value (semantically area dependent). Moreover where one can moderately differenciate between a lowered (<3cm) and raised (>3cm) kerb I don't think most of us would be capable to distinguish between 10 and 15cm efficiently --Lejun (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The tag kerb=regular it is ambiguous. And it does not solve any mobility problems for disabled people. --Meme (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)