On Thursday 02 October 2008, Alex Mauer wrote: > Ben Laenen wrote: > >> There are three options: > >> 1. make no assumptions: This means every single motorway_link > >> needs to have a oneway=yes or oneway=no (or oneway=-1). A pain > >> for taggers, and doesn't help makers of routing applications who > >> still need to handle the case where there is no oneway tag. > > > > Given the changing implication of oneway=yes this is actually the > > only option left -- like it or not, painful or not -- since they > > could be added by people who read that it was implied and by people > > who read it wasn't. > > Nah, it's not that bad. It just means that the only data currently > in there is built on the following: > > Either the person assumed there was no implied value for one-way, in > which case they would have explicitly tagged all of them. > > Or they read that oneway=yes was implied, in which case they would > have only tagged the oneway=no and oneway=-1.
Then read the example on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway=motorway_link once. It says: "The green way in this example can then be a simple junction withhighway=motorway_link without the oneway tag, as it is supposed to be used in both directions." When you read that, you don't assume there's no implicated oneway value. It says that by default it's oneway=no like with any other road. Note that the "implies oneway=yes" in the right column wasn't added on the page until June this year. Only from that point onwards the page started contradicting itself. Before that it clearly said oneway=no is implied. Hence the only option is to revisit all motorway links that don't have a oneway value and add it. After that we may have a oneway=yes implication. Ben _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
