[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

[Peter Elderson]

I wiould mark the route oneway=yes to indicate oneway signposting, then
oneway:foot=yes (or whatever is in use to indicate an access restriction on
a way) on the ways where it is actually forbidden.
I would not take oneway=yes on a route relation to indicate legal
restriction on its members.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op za 7 dec. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoniecz at tutanota.com>:

> There are some hiking routes
> signposted with allowing travel in one
> direction and forbidding in the opposite.
>
>
> 7 Dec 2019, 13:04 by pelderson at gmail.com:
>
> Cannot be legal for a pedestrian route, I think. So practical.
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
> Op 7 dec. 2019 om 10:53 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> 
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 7. Dec 2019, at 04:36, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If oneway=yes is placed on a route relation then any excursions and
> appropriate approaches will have to be separate relations.
>
>
>
> is it a legal restriction or a practical one if placed on a route relation?
>
>
> Cheers Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> 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/20191207/4bf0864b/attachment.html>