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

Jarek PiĆ³rkowski jarek at piorkowski.ca
Wed Jan 15 00:02:28 UTC 2020


On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
>> [everything else on oneway:foot, foot:oneway, foot:backward and foot:forward less than 100 uses per tag]
>
> 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.

I was mostly interested in what "tagging scheme" people have come up
with on their own, in absence of wiki/tagging list guidance. These
tags were spread across Europe (and some smattering elsewhere in the
world) so it's unlikely to be a single editor or an import driving
this. "Folksonomy" was a term for this a while back.

I agree that oneway:foot=no is a redundant tag in vast majority of
cases. However it is illustrative of how people reason about this
property and what tag name feels natural to them.

--Jarek



More information about the Tagging mailing list