"(Note: may be considered normal or yes pending discussion.)"
Where is this discussion? URL? Surely not "normal" as usually in France or Germany, lowered is rather the norm at crossings and the page seems to be related to crossings (as nodes are referred in the first sentences).
Words are meaningless. Use kerb hight in SI unit
every wheelchair user knows the kerb hight he/she can pass for every used wheelchair. In Centimeters for 99% of the countries on this planet. 0 % of wheelchair users know the table on this page. Stop inventing words for hights. Use centimeters. Allow routing algorithms for wheelchair users to accept user entries in cm and route exactly the needed way.
Kerb:raised at bus stops "implies wheelchair=no"?
I am a bit confused. The paragraph "raised" states that it can be added to bus stops, but it also states, that it implies wheelchair=no. On the other hand Key:wheelchair#Bus_stop states "wheelchair=yes (if there is a high level kerb [...])"... what is correct now? I don't think that you get around tagging the actual height of the kerb for public transport. --Raffael (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Found a reference: Talk:Tag:highway=bus_stop#kerb.3Draised
- I think you're confusing kerb=raised preventing a wheelchair crossing the road at that point, and kerb=raised at a bus stop to aid access to the buses (though as the reference above states, it doesn't say anything about whether accessible buses stop at that stop, so can't really be taken to imply wheelchair=yes or no when used on a bus stop for bus accessibility - just that it wouldn't be possible to cross the road there. Re-reading the page I suspect kerb=raised implies wheelchair=no when used on highway ways that aren't bus stop nodes - read the second paragraph on the page for the type of highway ways that I suspect are the "general method" mentioned lower down, when it mentions bus stop as an exception before then going on about what is implied for the general method. -- EdLoach (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it needs a bit of rewording for clarification. If a company/municipality raises the kerb at a bus stop it's to help people to get into and out buses. It doesn't not mean that all buses at this stop will be accessible but the purpose being to make the transport route(s) accessible it implies that the platform is intended to be accessible (and therefore the road can't be crossed). --Nospam2005 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Lowered flush kerb
Is "lowered" intended to mean lower than the rest of the kerb, or does it mean lower than a normal kerb (low enough to be traversed using wheelchairs)? If there's a dip at a crosswalk (perhaps just a slight dip) and the kerb is flush with the pavement there, should it be marked kerb=lowered or kerb=flush? Germyb (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- kerb=lowered means a low kerb that can be traversed by someone in a wheelchair. – If you think a blind person with a stick notices the difference in height between the carriageway and the kerb/pavement, tag it kerb=lowered, if not, tag it kerb=flush. Hope I could help. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
JOSM makes a distinction how kerbs are drawn based on the direction of the way. There's a description on the wiki page for natural=cliff, on how to draw a cliff to indicate which side is higher than the other. Should similar text be included to this wiki page, to indicate which side a kerb rises or lowers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrown8 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 December 2017
- It seems you confuse kerb=* with barrier=kerb. For barrier=kerb, right is bottom, left is up. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Open issues and suggestions how to solve them
- Contradicting informations whether common high kerbs (see image 1) can be tagged raised or if this value is reserved for very high kerbs at public transport stops
- I think it makes sense to tag them raised too, as it doesn't make a difference for wheelchair users if the kerb is 12 or 30 centimetres high.
- kerb:left=* and kerb:right=* for asymmetric kerbs tagged on a crossing node
- This doesn't make sense, because a node has no directionality. I think this comment should be removed from the wiki.
- Undocumented how to tag kerbs along roads or sidewalks
- No default unit for kerb:height=*
- No distinction is made between square kerbs of low height (ca 2–4 cm; image 2) and kerb ramps / sloped kerbs (images 3 and 4)
- Suggestion: use sloped for kerb ramps and sloped kerbs, leaving lowered for kerbs of low height
- No value for kerbs that are traversable by vehicles and bicycles, but not wheelchairs, due to too high degrees (image 5).
- Suggestion: new value stronly_sloped
Alternative kerb=* value scheme:
- mountable: mountable for wheelchairs and vehicles
- semi-mountable: not mountable for wheelchairs but mountable for vehicles
- non-mountable: neither mountable for wheelchairs nor vehicles
- Here's my take on the open issues:
- Wheelchair users may not be interested in the difference, but other data consumers will be. So I believe should be possible to distinguish these two types. This was already brought up as an issue back in 2011 when the key was proposed. The suggestions included introducing the value normal (for kerbs like in image 1), the value bus (for those very high public transport kerbs), or both.
- Crossing nodes must always be part of a road, and the left/right tagging simply refers to the direction of that way. Works fine in practice.
- How about sidewalk:left:kerb=* and sidewalk:left:kerb=*? This tagging scheme is already mentioned at Key:sidewalk#Additional_tags.
- I agree that the default unit should be metre.
- We should distinguish them, but to me, images 2 and 4 seem much more similar than 3 and 4. Can you clarifiy the criteria you would use here?
- Sounds ok to me.
- --Tordanik 18:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback!
- normal might not have the same shape and height everywhere ... Meanwhile, I think it's best to tag the kerb shape (rectangular/sloped/rolled/flushed), height and incline (for sloped kerbs), as this information is unambiguous and universal.
- Now, I understand. But isn't this a bit unstable if the direction of the road way is reversed? And what if the crossing node is connected with a footway?
- I was thinking of sidewalks tagged as separate ways.
- The criteria would be difference in height (rectangular) vs no difference in heigh (sloped), or slope (sloped) vs no slope (rectangular).
- Tagging the kerb shape would make kerb=stronly_sloped unnecessary. A sloped kerb of 45° cloud simply be tagged kerb=sloped + incline=100%.