On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 04:48, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> >> > wrote: >> >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, >> > >> > That tag on footways would apply only to walkers. >> >> well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and only >> apply to bicycles? >> What about highway=pedestrian? >> > The problem with oneway=yes|no, if it were to apply to pedestrians as well, > would be on all mixed-use ways. > This would exclude highway=pedestrian as this tag excludes all vehicles by > definition (careful if it's an "area pedonale" in Italy, which allows > bicycles by default and hence requires a bicycle=yes in OSM-speak, but that's > beside the point).
I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this scheme). Perhaps the only other thing could be highway=path, where there could be some ambiguity with bicycles. But at least we can avoid the "street with sidewalk" interpretation. Does anyone have counterexamples? --Jarek _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
