[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

[Warin]

On 07/12/19 23:59, Peter Elderson wrote:
> I wiould mark the route oneway=yes to indicate oneway signposting,

For some it is not the signposting but a legal requirement that the 
hiking route foot traffic is in one direction only. And it is enforced.

The tag oneway=yes is taken to be a legal restriction elsewhere, and 
should remain with that interpretation here.

For signage that is visible in one direction only there is already an 
existing tag for it.

> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>>
>             het volgende geschreven:
>
>             
>
>             sent from a phone
>
>                 On 7. Dec 2019, at 04:36, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
>                 <mailto: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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191208/32c77549/attachment.html>