[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

LeTopographeFou letopographefou at gmail.com
Sat Sep 17 13:23:39 UTC 2016

I did not think of traffic directions, good point! I think oneway makes 
sense better than traffic_direction. This would means that oneway apply 
to traffic whether it is on ground, water, air, rail... much more easier 
for routing engines (and for amphibian vehicles such as Duck tours!).

The usecase I've originaly found (but I did not check all 17596 usage) 
was a usage for intermitent streams (and some which are culverts!) in 
the middle of the desert of Colorado. In this specific case I don't 
think any traffic is feasible.

So the question now is: does oneway apply to the direction of the stream 
or to the direction of the traffic?

  * The wiki pages says oneway is used to "indicate the access
    restriction on highways and other linear features"
  * The wiki requires to draw waterways downward (which makes sense for me)
  * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Inland_navigation says nothing
    about traffic directions (but I think it's a real need)
  * JOSM stays silent on this one.

So I would say that oneway is valid for traffic directions on waterways 
and oneway=yes means that this part of the waterway can only be sailed 
downward. If my understanding is right, I propose to update the waterway 
and oneway pages to say that oneway can be used on waterways to 
represent the traffic direction.

But does it means that a river should be forked under a bridge whenever 
traffic directions go under different arches?



Le 17/09/2016 à 14:45, Colin Smale a écrit :
> I would expect that the situation where the flow direction conflicts 
> with the traffic direction is likely to be quite short - under 
> bridges, around obstacles etc. In these cases we could always call on 
> our old friend "oneway=-1" or "oneway=reverse" to mean "traffic 
> direction is opposite to the flow direction". Having to create a route 
> relation is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
> //colin
> On 2016-09-17 14:35, Dave F wrote:
>> I've seen it used on navigable canals to indicate traffic direction.
>> If there is a route relation I think it should be indicate with 
>> forward/backward roles.
>> If not then for clarity, maybe something like traffic_flow=backwards?
>> Adding a route relation would be preferable though.
>> Dave F.
>> On 17/09/2016 13:20, Andy Townsend wrote:
>>> I've certainly used "oneway=yes" on inland waterways to document 
>>> signed traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense.
>>> There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in 
>>> error to indicate water flow direction, but you'd need to ask 
>>> whoever the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common 
>>> sense).
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andy
>>> *From: *LeTopographeFou
>>> *Sent: *Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17
>>> *To: *tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> *Reply To: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>>> *Subject: *[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways
>>> Hi
>>> According to the waterway=stream wiki page 
>>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):
>>>> /If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream 
>>>> (i.e. the way direction follows the flow)/
>>> As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways 
>>> according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes.
>>> Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete 
>>> oneway=yes tags for streams?
>>> The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals...
>>> Yours,
>>> -- 
>>> LeTopographeFou
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160917/91856333/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list