Thanks everybody for the input. I try to summarize the discussion so far as following. Please reply if I misunderstood some arguments.
- Not many are in favor of oneway=cw / oneway=ccw to indicate the actual direction. This is currently in the wiki but is hardly in use (about 5 times in total). I will go forward and remove this from the wiki. OK? - Once established is that a route should only be done in one direction with an appropriate tag, it's up to the data consumer to guess what direction (counterclockwise or clockwise) that actually is. This can be done based on the order of the members in the relations. - The above can contain ambiguity when a relation contains less then three members. Possible solution is to split ways to avoid ambiguity, forbid one-way routes of fewer than three members, or disambiguate with 'forward' or 'backward' roles on the ways. - One question that remains open is how to tag. On the one hand oneway=yes is currently in use with 1.2K relations. On the other had, the argument can be made that oneway=yes should be reserved to legal prescriptions and not just recommendations. Alternatives that came forward are: bidirectional=no, signed_oneway=yes, oneway=signposted, oneway=recommended, oneway=signed And one more thing I noticed: oneway=yes is currently used for route=hiking and route=walking. What about route=bicycle. The same problem exists there for a lot of the network=lcn routes. But the wiki doesn't mention anything. I think the same logic applies there, or not? On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:09:22 +0100, Hufkratzer <hufkrat...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is indeed interesting to store that the signs work only for one > direction, > therefore oneway=yes/no is documented for hiking routes > - in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking#Tags_of_the_relation > since Jan. 2013 > - in > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=hiking#Tags_of_the_relation > since > Mar. 2016 > and we already have 1.2k relations with oneway=yes > and zero with oneway=signed, bidirectional=no or signed_oneway=yes. > > On 14.03.2019 21:31, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I second Martin. No "oneway" key in this case. > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 21:18, Martin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > sent from a phone > > > > > On 14. Mar 2019, at 11:43, Sarah Hoffmann <lon...@denofr.de> wrote: > > > > > > or oneway=signed if you think it clashes with the legal > > > restriction tags). > > > > > > or bidirectional=no > > or signed_oneway=yes > > > > it shouldn’t be a value of the “oneway” key, there’s nothing > preventing you from doing the route in the counterdirection, especially > if you are with a map from OpenStreetMap ;-) > > > > Yes, it could be interesting to store that the signs work only > for one direction, but this is very different from a oneway. > > > > > > Cheers, Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
