[Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[osm at hjart.dk]

s8evq skrev den 30.04.2019 20:18:
> Helo everyone. I would like to pick up this month old discussion again
> and try to come to a conclussion.
> 
> The situation so far:
> 
> Problem: There are signposted hiking and biking routes, where the
> route itself goes only one way, because it's not way-marked in the
> opposite direction. How do we add that information in OSM?
> 
> Current solution: oneway=yes. Not preferred by many on this list, as
> oneway should indicate a legal restriction.
> 
> New solution: Some of you suggested alternative new tags, but we
> didn't come to a conclusion on this yet. What I have gathered from the
> various answers:
> 
> - bidirectional=no
> - signed_oneway=yes
> - signed_direction=yes
> - designated_direction=forward|both|backward
> - signed=forward|backward|both|none
> 
> Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using
> the word oneway.
> Also, using the value forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's
> possible to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation.

This is a false assumption. You should never rely on ways in route 
relations to even be ordered at all. OSM route relations are often 
edited by less experienced or non-technical contributors with no idea 
about ordering at all and there are also lots of cases where you can't 
even order a route in a meaningfull way.
> 
> Any other views? Anybody against replacing oneway=yes with
> signed_direction=yes in the wiki pages of route=foot and route=hiking?

I happen to know the guy who came up with the oneway=cw/ccw tagging 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dhiking&oldid=1453921) 
and remember briefly discussing it with him (he mapped a ton of 
walking/hiking routes in the areas around the danish/german border).

I don't really have much of a problem with oneway=* on route relations 
(since the meaning is fairly obvious to me), but I'm not against 
replacing it (note that the inventors primary language isn't english) , 
but have to state that the cw/ccw values (I suggested 
clockwise/anticlockwise) are necessary, since there's really no other 
way to indicate which direction a circular route is better followed.

Do also note that clockwise/anticlockwise values can be usefull for 
human consumers, even though they may not be for data consumers.