On 1/13/2020 9:46 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different
implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I
would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the
highway in question.
More specifically:
- I would expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on
footway.
No. There are thousands of footways with
bicycle=yes|official|designated to make them mixed foot-cycleways
Sure, there are many footways with allowance for an extra sort of
traffic, most commonly bicycles. If these footways are tagged
oneway=yes, I'd expect the other kinds of traffic to follow that rule
too, unless overridden with e.g. oneway:bicycle=no.
- I would also expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on
pedestrian, path, and cycleway -- unless explicitly nullified with a
oneway:foot=no tag.
No. There are thousands of pedestrain, path, cycleway with
bicycle=yes|official|designated to make them mixed foot-cycleways
I don't understand the "No." Nothing I wrote precludes using these ways
for both foot and bicycle traffic.
Cycleways are primarily for bicycles, so I'd expect a oneway tag on a
cycleway to primarily describe the bicycle traffic. If foot traffic is
also permitted on a oneway cycleway, I'd expect it to follow the same
oneway rule, unless explicitly overridden with a oneway:foot tag.
Pedestrian and path are a little more ambiguous, but again, I'd expect
the oneway tag to apply to whatever the predominant traffic is. And if
tagged oneway, I'd expect that oneway restriction to apply to foot
traffic unless overridden with a oneway:foot tag.
I'm not *advocating* for this to be a rule -- I'm just describing how
I'm accustomed to interpreting the existing tags. As we know, the
documentation is imperfect. If there's a better way of doing this,
great! Let's document it.
J
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
