[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

s8evq s8evq at runbox.com
Sat Dec 7 16:37:26 UTC 2019

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 01:09:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> oneway is generally not considered to apply to pedestrians.
> I agree with what Kevin has written, there should be a way to distinguish several cases of forward / backward, those where you can walk in both directions but only one is signposted,

We discussed this already in april of this year: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-April/044975.html

To summarize: some people preferred to no use "oneway=yes" on relations to indicate a trail can be hiked in both directions, but only one is signposted. This was because oneway implies a legal restriction and to avoid confusion. We then came up with the new key signed_direction= for this purpose. For lack of a better solution, the order of the members of the relation is used to determine in what direction the hike is signposted. I made the wiki page  (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:signed_direction) and the tag has been used since then by other mappers (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/signed_direction)

More information about the Tagging mailing list