There were some changes to the tag documentation pages for highway=*_link several weeks ago:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_link http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk_link http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary_link http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dsecondary_link All of these tags were previously documented to imply oneway=yes. Now only the page for highway=motorway_link still contains that implication. Generally, I don't think it's acceptable to change the definitions of tags in this way. Maybe you believe that these implications didn't actually make much sense or weren't implemented consistently. But they were documented in the wiki for quite some time, so it's inevitable that at least some mappers and applications used them. A change like this should be preceded by at least some discussion, and we should try to reliably inform application developers. There also needs to be a way of of how to deal with existing data based on the old documentation. I also wonder how we should deal with this specific situation. Can we still assume any default oneway information for *_link values (whether it's yes or no) or is oneway=yes/no a required second tag for *_links? Should an application developer decide to assume oneway=no (which might lead to longer-than-optimal routing results) or oneway=yes (which might send you the wrong way up a trunk link)? I'm not sure myself - for example, I'm still wondering how I should deal with this for my GraphView plugin -, but I'd like to know other people's opinions. Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
