[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 7 03:09:51 UTC 2019


On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's
> signposted for one direction.
>
>
>
> I would prefer being more explicit in the tag name, e.g.
> sign_direction=forward/backward/both
>
> pedestrian_oneway=yes
> or maybe
>
> oneway:foot=yes
>

Where it's a restriction on the walking path, then oneway=yes on the way,
when it's a restriction on the route a oneway=yes on the route is the way
to go.

We already have a well documented and accepted way to tag conditional
restrictions via
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions. So no need
for a new tag, oneway:foot=yes/no is the way to go. If you want to be
explicit that's fine, but I think oneway=yes on a highway=footway,path
already implies it's oneway for pedestrians.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191207/28919dbc/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list