I don't think that oneway=yes on a hiking route causes confusion. It doesn't in real life, so why should it in OSM? Even if there were ways that a pedestrian cannot legally walk against the direction, routers/navigators always check all individual ways , so there is no risk of steering pedestrians over a legal restriction.
I'm perfectly fine with oneway=yes, and determining the direction from the order of ways in the relation. Remains the problem that the order in the relations is unreliable, many are unsortable, so in many cases the direction cannot be determined. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 8 mei 2019 om 12:04 schreef s8evq <s8...@runbox.com>: > Hopeful to come to a conclusion, I would like to propose to edit the Wiki > with the following: > > > Current text on page route=hiking: > oneway yes/no/cw/ccw (optional) Use oneway=yes to indicate that the > route is to be walked in only one direction, according to the signposts on > the ground > proposal: It might be useful to indicate if the route is marked in the > clockwise or counterclockwise direction, i.e. oneway=cw or oneway=ccw. > > Changing to: > signed_direction=yes (optional) Use signed_direction=yes to indicate that > the route is to be walked in only one direction, according to the signposts > on the ground. The ways within the relation should be ordered, as they are > used to determine the direction of the signposts. It's prefered to not use > oneway=yes anymore, as it could cause confusion with oneway=* as a legal > restriction. (as discussed on the tagging mailing list (insert link)) > > This changes could also be applied on route=foot and route=bicycle > > Comments? > > > On Sun, 5 May 2019 12:44:10 +0100, ael via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 07:38:45AM +0200, s8evq wrote: > > > Another attempt at summarizing the current situation: > > > > > > How should we included the direction? > > > > > > - Andy Townsend suggested "Explicit start and/or finish nodes?", but > I'm afraid that's not enough to deduce the direction of complex hiking > routes like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9535700 > > > > > > - Using the sorted order of the relation? A lot of criticism on this > method. It's fragile and could easily break when newbies edit. On the other > hand, it's the only solution we have. Sarah remarked: "An unsorted route is > not wrong, it's only less precise. Maps can show it without issues > including waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features." > > > > Just a thought, but with minimal background knowledge:- > > > > Why not add a boolean tag, something like "sorted=yes" which editors > > will always turn off unless the editor (or user) can verify that the > > sorting has been maintained? Provided that there is a well defined order > > relation, that should be something that editor could automate? > > > > ael > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
