[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

[Peter Elderson]

Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> 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

Hm... sign direction for pedestrians is assumed both, if it's one way I would say forward is the sign direction. There is no extra information in this tag. 

> pedestrian_oneway=yes

When applied to a walking route, "pedestrian" is implicit.

> or maybe 
> 
> oneway:foot=yes 

Same comment.

> 
> would be more in line with what we already have: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=oneway

oneway is mostly applied to ways, where pedestrian is not implied. For a route, the mode of transport is implied, and the tag is applied to the route, not to specific ways. 

> ______________________________________________
> 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/20191207/21229652/attachment.html>