[OSM-talk-be] [hiking] OSM Pff several hours working on this...

[André Pirard]

On 2014-12-03 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote :
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:30 PM, André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com
> <mailto:A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Usually, hiking routes are designed to be walked in a single
>     direction (the signs are not well visible in the other) and that
>     can be stressed with oneway=yes.
>
>
> Que ? Are you placing oneway=yes on footpaths ?
No. If "routes are designed to be walked in a single direction",
oneway=yes is tagged on route relations and not on the ways nor on the
nodes.  That's obvious and explained at the URLs I mentioned.
> Since a walking route is something on-top of existing paths, it is
> wrong to add oneway on the path. One can take the path in the other
> direction when one does not follow the signposted route. By putting
> oneway=yes on the path you just block that possibility for a
> navigation device.
> This would be the same as putting a oneway=yes on a street, just
> because a bus route is only going in one direction through that
> street, while it is a two-way street.
>
> One of the relation pages you mention links
> to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route where the roles
> of the members are explained. Forward & backward are mentioned there.
We know that, but it's the particular usage for hiking routes that's
missing and hence fuzzy, which is why Jakka was puzzled.
>
> One can also use http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation to verify
> the correctness of a relation. Fill in the number (4225213 from Andrés
> example)
>
> regards
>
> m
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20141203/758e4ce3/attachment.htm>