2015-09-13 23:38 GMT+02:00 Paul Norman :
> On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote:
>>
>> Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must
>> also be tagged for every motorway_link. If not tagged, the oneway=*
>> status of this way is undefined.
>
> Explicitly tagging oneway on links
2015-09-14 2:40 GMT+02:00 Richard Welty :
> quite. there are sections of motorway_link highways along the taconic
> parkway in NY which are two way and so lack oneway tags. now it's not that
> hard
> to go through and fix it, but i'm reasonably sure this is not the only place
> where
> this situa
Richard Welty writes:
> On 9/13/15 5:38 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>> On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote:
>>> Tools to help enforcing the obligatory usage:
>>> [...]
>>> - No routing over undefined oneways
>> The chances of anyone implementing this in their routing engine are
>> approximately zer
On 9/13/15 5:38 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote:
>
>> Tools to help enforcing the obligatory usage:
>> [...]
>> - No routing over undefined oneways
> The chances of anyone implementing this in their routing engine are
> approximately zero.
quite. there are sections of m
On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote:
Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must
also be tagged for every motorway_link. If not tagged, the oneway=*
status of this way is undefined.
Explicitly tagging oneway on links is preferable for obvious reasons,
but you need to be
Considering that most replies where not in favour of dropping routing
over "undefined oneway" I changed the sentence about routers:
"- 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 curren
> Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more
> explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in
> the real world is motorway_link a two-way road?
This is quite common in some parts parts of Europe. Here an Overpass
Turbo link which covers south-western
On 11/09/2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:41:36 +
> moltonel wrote:
>
>> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki
>> page. They might look at stats and decide themselves what the absence
>> of a oneway tag means, but a wiki proposal is never
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:40:21 -0500
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:41 AM, moltonel wrote:
>
> > > If not tagged, the oneway=*
> > >status of this way is undefined.
> >
> > You wont gain anything by de-defining the "oneway=no" default value.
> > Consumers (routers, renderers, wha
Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Documentation on wiki is one of main sources during development of
> map style.
You mean of the openstreetmap-carto style, which is just one of many.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-proposal-Obligatory-tagging-of-oneway-
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:41:36 +
moltonel wrote:
> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki
> page. They might look at stats and decide themselves what the absence
> of a oneway tag means, but a wiki proposal is never going to
> influence that decision.
Documentati
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:41 AM, moltonel wrote:
> > If not tagged, the oneway=*
> >status of this way is undefined.
>
> You wont gain anything by de-defining the "oneway=no" default value.
> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki page.
> They might look at stats an
On 10 September 2015 13:20:43 GMT+01:00, Joachim wrote:
>Proposal:
>Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must
>also be tagged for every motorway_link.
Sounds fair.
> If not tagged, the oneway=*
>status of this way is undefined.
You wont gain anything by de-defining t
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Kieron Thwaites
wrote:
> > Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more
> > explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in
> > the real world is motorway_link a two-way road?
>
> While I agree such a case is rare, it i
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Shawn K. Quinn
wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 14:20 +0200, Joachim wrote:
> > I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link.
> > Please comment.
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway
> >
> > P
> Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more
> explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in
> the real world is motorway_link a two-way road?
While I agree such a case is rare, it is possible.
See: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68433570 -- whil
On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 14:20 +0200, Joachim wrote:
> I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link.
> Please comment.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway
>
> Proposal:
> Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that onewa
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:20:43 +0200
Joachim wrote:
> I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link.
> Please comment.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obliga
18 matches
Mail list logo