On 28.12.2014 17:45, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> "you'd probably want to discuss that over at
>> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues";
>
> I thought that https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2220 will fix this
> problem.
Maybe that's why most of the oneway=no I checked come from Potl
On 28/12/2014, Ole Nielsen / osm wrote:
> It depends. Sometimes it is useful to add this tag. I typically add it to
> bidirectional cycle paths along roads as you would normally expect such
> cycleways to be oneway. Adding a oneway=no indicates that it has been
> surveyed and found to be bidirecti
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:36 AM, John Willis wrote:
> I bet a lot of people, myself included, simply uncheck the box (making it no)
> rather than the trash can to delete the tag. I bet that is where a lot of
> them are coming from.
This is what happened here
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/
On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:20 AM, Andy Street wrote:
>> I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads,
>> probably due to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway
>> key.
If you mistakenly check the "one way" box on a road preset in iD, unchecking
the box chafes the va
Am 28.12.2014 um 19:20 schrieb Andy Street:.
> These tags are far from "information-less" as they convey the fact that
> a mapper has considered the property in question and wishes to record
> that it does not apply.
I'm afraid that you are kidding yourself in a big way.
Nearly all massive, "I wi
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:01:16 +0100
Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads,
> probably due to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway
> key.
Or perhaps due to diligent mappers?
> I wonder what's next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...?
If
"you'd probably want to discuss that over at
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues";
I thought that https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2220 will fix
this problem.
2014-12-28 17:27 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse :
> On 28/12/2014 16:01, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>
>> I think that those editor
> I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, probably
> due
> to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway key. I wonder
> what's
> next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...?
>
> I find these information-less tags annoying, because you have to browse a
> long list of bogus tags
On 28/12/2014 16:01, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
I think that those editors should only make , "yes" and "-1"
selectable, or omit the "no" values on upload at last, except for motorways,
motorway_links and roundabouts.
I don't believe that there's yet an automatic interface between mailing
list a
