On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:49:54 +0200 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, that's exactly the same as 'oneway=no' on two-ways roads. When > > the tag is not present, we assume that the road is two ways. That's > > it. If it's wrong, then fix it by adding the oneway tag. > > It is the same for waterways and the direction of the way. If it's > > wrong, then reverse the direction of the way with your prefered > > editor. We have similar conventions for the coastline, we don't > > have/need a tag saying which side is the land and which side is the > > water and nobody complains. > > > +1, there is also other similar conventions like > barrier=retaining_wall. This is detailing tags which have two parts to their meanings. Really this is a form of shorthand which is convenient for those who know the code, and not to those who don't comprehend the 'code'. What sort of a difference does this make to the computed use of the data? We can only make a decision on whether these conventions continue when we understand how it affects the data use. There are good arguments each way for the input of the data. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
