> following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction applied to > pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because "oneway" already > has no implication for pedestrian
That "logic" is not logical. Why would another mapper or a database user assume that? If I saw this tag as a mapper, it would be logical to assume that the oneway restriction did indeed apply to foot travel. It is the same as a database user designing a routing application or renderer - you are not going to assume that a tag is meaningless (unless it looks like it came from a bad import). (This sort of pedantic arguement is like claiming that "I don't got no money" means "I have money" because it is a "double negative", but in fact double negatives are extremely common in spoken languages as a means of emphasis, and are perfectly "standard" in many (like Spanish, Indonesian, and many dialects of English).) -Joseph Eisenberg On 1/14/20, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:08 Uhr schrieb Jmapb <[email protected]>: > >> IMO they're both ugly. Don't love -1, and don't love introducing a new >> backward/forward scheme with basically the same meaning and possibly >> ambiguous interactions with the older oneway scheme. > > > > the idea that oneway is about "driving" and not about "walking" is quite > old, you can find it since 2007: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:oneway&oldid=55990 > "Description Oneway streets are streets where you are only allowed to drive > in one direction." > > This is also what the access page says: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#One-way_restrictions > > I believe it is beneficial to agree on the colon as separator for combining > individual tags, e.g. > oneway:bicycle=no means is composed of "oneway" and "bicycle", as opposed > to the hypothetical oneway_bicycle which would be a completely new tag > "oneway bicycle". While it would be the same to write "bicycle:oneway", the > general rules about tag composition order discourage this (hence it is used > orders of magnitude less) > > following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction applied > to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because "oneway" > already has no implication for pedestrian, so the further restriction for > "foot" will not change it, you may not drive your feet in the other > direction. > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
