On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's > signposted for one direction. > > > > I would prefer being more explicit in the tag name, e.g. > sign_direction=forward/backward/both > > pedestrian_oneway=yes > or maybe > > oneway:foot=yes > Where it's a restriction on the walking path, then oneway=yes on the way, when it's a restriction on the route a oneway=yes on the route is the way to go. We already have a well documented and accepted way to tag conditional restrictions via https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions. So no need for a new tag, oneway:foot=yes/no is the way to go. If you want to be explicit that's fine, but I think oneway=yes on a highway=footway,path already implies it's oneway for pedestrians.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
