2011-06-22 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: > 2011/6/22 Pieren <pier...@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Josh Doe <j...@joshdoe.com> wrote: >>> >>> I removed the yes and no values, because I couldn't see any utility, >>> instead offering the "unknown" value. >> >> I don't think it is a good idea. In fact, the 'yes' value is widely used in >> OSM when you don't know the details (e.g. aerial imagery survey). For >> instance, building=yes. You are changing a basic rule of OSM tagging without >> any improvement. > > I think it does not matter. Why and how would you survey kerbs from > aerial imagery?
Leaving aerial imagery aside, I also usually know from memory whether or not there is a kerb, but I'd need to go the crossings again to determine the kerb's height. So until I get around to revisit them, it would make sense to just tag kerb=yes. Currently, the proposal suggests kerb=unknown for this purpose, i.e. to indicate that *some* sort of kerb is present. In my opinion, that's a bad value, because it can easily be interpreted as "it is unknown whether or not there is a kerb" (in fact, I first wrote this reply based on that assumption, and only then noticed that the proposal was using it differently). Furthermore, I don't understand at all why the "no" value has been removed. There are sidewalks that are defined by other separators than a kerb. I therefore suggest to rename kerb=unknown to kerb=yes, and to add kerb=no back to the proposal. -- Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging