I can understand your concern, but please have a look at the reactions when the proposal still included "don't route over motorway_link without oneway". The reactions said there is no chance in enforcing this.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-September/026453.html 2015-10-30 0:51 GMT+01:00 André Pirard <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com>: > On 2015-10-29 20:45, Joachim wrote : > It says: > > Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link. > > 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 current data. > > It is totally unacceptable to let a GPS provider "decide on its (not it's) > own" (what?) based on fuzzy and vague "documentation history and current > data". OSM is the place that *must* contain the data to be used and, > should the oneway status be undetermined, routing must obviously be > *requested* to not let the cars go through that place. > If that undetermined status existed, contributors should not be > recommended but requested explicit tagging. > And hence, quality assurance providers should be *requested* to check > motorway_link statuses and to warn the culprit and not an innocent as > Osmose does, and even this Tagging list in such grave security cases. > > Please let us not make OSM responsible for car crashes. > > Cheers > > André. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
