[Tagging] [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess

David Fisher djfisher81 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 09:07:26 UTC 2015

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net> wrote:
> On 6/4/15 11:53 AM, AYTOUN RALPH wrote:
> The oneway=yes, oneway=no conundrum...... put yourself in the position where
> you are looking at a road ahead of you. It is only wide enough for one
> vehicle but has passing bays along it's length. It is not wide enough to be
> a conventional twoway road so can it be tagged twoway? That would give the
> impression that cars can progress along it in opposite directions at the
> same time....that would be incorrect. But neither direction has the right of
> way and it is up to driver discretion and politeness as to who will reverse
> back to the passing bay. So oneway=no but twoway is not necessary yes.
> i've used
> lanes=1
> and omitted oneway in these cases
> richard

Surely here the point is that the "oneway" tag describes the
*legalities* of use, rather than the physical setup.  "oneway=yes"
means "you are only permitted to travel in one direction along this
way", not "this way has one lane".  Equally, "oneway=no" doesn't imply
anything about the number of lanes, and would be entirely correct (if
generally redundant) tagging on a single-lane road.

This is why I think "oneway" is a suitable tag but "twoway" would not
be -- the "two" might imply a set number of lanes which might not
match what's on the ground.  Hence the "lanes" tag.


David (user Pgd81)

More information about the Tagging mailing list