Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I >> guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no >> > > It's not meaningless at all. It says that although the road is oneway to > vehicular > traffic, pedestrians may walk in either direction. > this is already the commonly agreed, documented since 15 years, meaning of oneway=yes. Nothing added. > This is not always the case: > single-lane roads without a pavement may require that pedestrians only > walk in > the opposite direction to oneway vehicular traffic on safety grounds. > Like in "they may not legally walk in the oneway direction"? Which jurisdiction is this? In the jurisdictions I am aware of, in absence of a pavement you have to walk on the road / carriageway. You may not do so only if there are signs that prohibit pedestrian usage. > The use > of oneway:foot=no makes clear that no such restriction applies to > pedestrians > and that the onewayness of the road applies only to vehicular traffic. > > We use similar schemes for access tags. Why are you having difficulty > with this? > I do not have difficulty with it, it is just meaningless. A similar case for access tags would be motor_vehicle=no and then add a motorcar=no. It doesn't add anything. Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
