[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Sat Dec 7 11:49:27 UTC 2019


And, I would interpret the route direction for pedestrians as a suggestion, not an access restriction or physical restriction.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 7 dec. 2019 om 04:11 heeft Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191207/7cda6062/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list