[Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

s8evq s8evq at runbox.com
Tue Apr 30 18:18:35 UTC 2019


Helo everyone. I would like to pick up this month old discussion again and try to come to a conclussion. 

The situation so far:

Problem: There are signposted hiking and biking routes, where the route itself goes only one way, because it's not way-marked in the opposite direction. How do we add that information in OSM?

Current solution: oneway=yes. Not preferred by many on this list, as oneway should indicate a legal restriction.

New solution: Some of you suggested alternative new tags, but we didn't come to a conclusion on this yet. What I have gathered from the various answers:

- bidirectional=no
- signed_oneway=yes
- signed_direction=yes
- designated_direction=forward|both|backward
- signed=forward|backward|both|none

Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using the word oneway. 
Also, using the value forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's possible to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation.

Any other views? Anybody against replacing oneway=yes with signed_direction=yes in the wiki pages of route=foot and route=hiking?


On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:37:35 +0000, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Le 19.03.19 à 10:05, marc marc a écrit :
> > Le 19.03.19 à 09:37, Markus a écrit :
> >> what about signed_direction=*?
> > 
> > signed:forward|backward|both|none ?
> 
> oups typo
> signed=forward|backward|both|none ?
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





More information about the Tagging mailing list