On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
> I believe that you haven't explicitly said so, but probably essentially
> want to be able to find streets that haven't been surveyed and
> potentially need a oneway tag and avoid false positives (aka such that
> are actually bi-directional).
You nailed it :).
I am going out with my daughter to tag directions:
https://twitter.com/fxn/status/503616557776646144
The closer I have been to distinguish that is this query:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4LR
That makes me also wonder as a side-effect about the implication of
the current contract and the usage patterns it promotes. Implications
in particular for turn-by-turn indications, but that was secondary, my
main motivation is the one above.
> I don't believe you'll get any further with the oneway tag, but given
> that we have similar issues for example with name tags, you could
> consider something like proposed in
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Internal_quality ,
> in your case
>
> validate:no_oneway
>
>
> Simon
>
> PS: the noname tag is actually substantially more popular than
> validate:no_name but if you are inventing something new, you might as
> well stick to the validate: scheme.
That's interesting, I'll take into account.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
