[Tagging] oneway=no spams

Ole Nielsen / osm on-osm at xs4all.nl
Sun Dec 28 16:33:27 UTC 2014


> I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, probably
> due
> to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway key. I wonder
> what's
> next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...?
>
> I find these information-less tags annoying, because you have to browse a
> long list of bogus tags on each object to finally spot the one or two tags
> that actually matter.

It depends. Sometimes it is useful to add this tag. I typically add it to
bidirectional cycle paths along roads as you would normally expect such
cycleways to be oneway. Adding a oneway=no indicates that it has been
surveyed and found to be bidirectional and will further prevent eager
mappers adding the "missing" oneway=yes tag to this cycleway.

But I agree that it is silly to add it to all highways in general. I
occasionally see highways having long lists of obvious *=yes access tags
(and some silly *=no as well such as boat=no on a highway=trunk!).

>
> I think that those editors should only make <undefined>, "yes" and "-1"
> selectable, or omit the "no" values on upload at last, except for
> motorways,
> motorway_links and roundabouts.

A roundabout with oneway=no is not a roundabout, just a circular road.





More information about the Tagging mailing list