[Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 14:33:07 UTC 2020


Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek PiĆ³rkowski <
jarek at piorkowski.ca>:

> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural
> language.
>
> Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
> according to Taginfo:
>
> oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region)
> oneway:foot=yes 89
> oneway:foot=-1, 1 occurrence
>
> foot:oneway=no 48
> foot:oneway=yes 2
>
> foot:backward=designated 45
> foot:backward=yes 41
> foot:backward=no 40
> foot:backward=use_sidepath (not really applicable here) 18
> foot:backward=permissive 6
> foot:backward=private 1
>
> foot:forward=no 41
> foot:forward=designated (not really applicable?) 36
> foot:forward=use_sidepath (not really applicable) 23
> foot:forward=yes 20
> foot:forward=customers 4 (only customers and only one-way?)
> foot:forward=destination 3 (might be Hotel California)
> foot:forward=permissive 2



what is your interpretation of these numbers?
Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I
guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no with 1267
occurences. Let me put this in relation to the 15 Million oneway=* and 11.6
M oneway=yes. All other variants reach not even 100 global uses.

IMHO with such tiny numbers we should choose a representation that best
works for us, rather than let us guide from statistics without a
sufficiently large basis.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200114/cd5117a9/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list