I believe that you haven't explicitly said so, but probably essentially want to be able to find streets that haven't been surveyed and potentially need a oneway tag and avoid false positives (aka such that are actually bi-directional).
I don't believe you'll get any further with the oneway tag, but given that we have similar issues for example with name tags, you could consider something like proposed in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Internal_quality , in your case validate:no_oneway Simon PS: the noname tag is actually substantially more popular than validate:no_name but if you are inventing something new, you might as well stick to the validate: scheme. Am 28.08.2014 16:32, schrieb Xavier Noria: > For the sake of discussion, I believe the interface for setting this > attribute could be different (I am a software developer). > > For example, in graphical interfaces like iD you could have "no" > preselected as convenience. But if you send "no", you are saying "no". > Otherwise, you could opt-out and leave the value as blank, that > would mean "unknown"/"unset". > > In APIs, the attribute would have no default. If you say "no", it is > "no", if you send nothing, it is "unset". > > That way you could distinguish "no"s from "unset"s. Right now you > cannot because conventions promote saying nothing. > > I realize changing any of this may be impossible nowadays, and maybe > you disagree with that proposal. But if there was a chance to revise > this I know Ruby on Rails and could work on it. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
