[OSM-talk] park barrier

[Shaun McDonald]

On 11 Aug 2009, at 18:01, Tobias Knerr wrote:

> Shaun McDonald wrote:
>>> oneway=yes isn't a good idea, as oneway is generally assumed to / 
>>> not/
>>> affect pedestrians. (Or how many of you actually add an exception  
>>> for
>>> pedestrians when mapping a highway with oneway=yes?)
>>
>> The exception being highways that are for pedestrians, i.e. footway  
>> and
>> pedestrian.
>
> That exception isn't documented anywhere, really rare and as such
> unlikely to be included with all applications. It might make sense to
> you as a human, but what's the general rule that would describe the
> desired behaviour? For example: Would oneway apply to pedestrians if
> used on highway=path? Would this depend on the access tags used  
> together
> with it?

It hasn't been documented yet because noone has been mapping to that  
level of detail yet.

>
>>> I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever  
>>> syntax
>>> for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway
>>> leading through the turnstile.
>>
>> That's an uggly looking tag.
>
> That sort of tag or anything equivalently expressive is required to
> represent some situations. I'm not proposing it specifically as a
> solution for this case. However, as a general solution for conditional
> tagging (depending on direction, vehicle, time, etc.) is needed  
> anyway,
> it can be used to solve this as well.

oneway:foot=yes is what I would use in that case as it would follow  
the same pattern as several other tags.

Shaun

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2433 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090811/c6c549c7/attachment.bin>