On 29/10/2015, Joachim <nore...@freedom-x.de> wrote: > I invite you to vote on the proposal "Motorway link no default > oneway". The following is proposed: > > Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link.
No need for a proposal and a vote to do that. Just go ahead and recommend it. > Define that highway=motorway_link without tagged oneway=* has no > implied oneway=yes That's the case already, no change here. Only motorways are rather universally expected to be oneway. > and also the standard default of oneway=no does not > apply. The oneway=* status of such a way would be undefined. That's useless. You're not writing a spec to generate code in a language that has a concept of nulls, you're writing some documentation that might, maybe, be read by consumers and implementors. And if all you can tell them is "it's your call" you might as well not waste their time and not tell them anything. > * For rendering purposes ways with undefined oneway should be > displayed like the default, i.e. without oneway arrows. > * For routing purposes no recommendation for ways with undefined > oneway is made. A provider should decide on it's own considering the > documentation history and current data. That contradicts the "no implied oneway=yes" statement and is inconsistent with the recomendation for renderers. Just leave the status quo (most routers assume oneway=no) in peace please. I've given examples before explaining why a mistaken oneway=yes assumption is worse than a mistaken oneway=no assumption where routing is concerned. > * In map editors undefined oneway should be displayed as tagging > error. Corresponding tickets will be opened for JOSM/iD/Potlatch. Again, no need for a proposal to do that. Just go ahead and open feature requests if they don't exist already. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
