[Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun Feb 2 08:59:13 UTC 2014


2014-02-01 Pee Wee <piewie32 at gmail.com>:

> 1 seems the best representation,
>>
> But rather complicated I'm afraid
>


You need turn restrictions very often anyway to represent legal
restrictions, and this is just another case. You'd split the way at the
node, add both ways as members (from and to role) and the node with role
"via", add the kind of restriction, done. IMHO this is the correct solution.



>
>
>> 2 is not working because a node has no direction
>>
> If a node is part of a way (which has a direction) a router should have
> enough information to conclude in which direction there is a motorcar=no.
>


a node still doesn't have a direction, the node could also be the end of
more than one way, or there could be more ways going into the node, all of
which would make the situation unclear, and all of which can also happen in
the future. Advocating tagging a node would require all future map editors
to take care about the tagging of all nodes when reversing the direction of
a way or of the connecting nodes when simply adding ways. I'd discourage
this tagging (and, semantically it doesn't make sense anyway).



>
>>  and for 3 I'd rather use oneway=yes instead of motorcar:backward=no.
>>
>
> It is not a oneway street and if you want to make it one I'd rather use
> the oneway:motorcar=yes/-1  (depending on the direction of the way).
>


this depends of course of the exact sign and its meaning. I had asumed you
wrote about this sign:
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/e/3/R/n/m/Y/einfahrt-verboten-sign.svg
but now have seen that it is an explicit motorcar sign, so yes,
oneway:motorcar=yes (on a tiny piece of way).

cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140202/d5efb57c/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list