[OSM-talk] OpenRailwayMap Electrification Status vs tag electrification=no

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:

> while we do not add oneway=no generally, the tag shouldn’t be
> completely dismissed either. I would usually not remove it, and
> sometimes it will be put as confirmation because you would find a
> oneway tag omission more likely than a bidirectional road
> (particularly has to do with topography and road width)

I also agree that people removing oneway=no is not an ok thing to do.

Stepping back, while we have default semantics (e.g., a road is assumed
to be two-way in the absence of a oneway tag), it's normal to add the
information when it is known in most cases.

I think oneway=no only seems odd because of two things:

  oneway streets are relatively rare

  in particular oneway on major roads (not motorway halves) is even
  rarer

  a street being onwway is important to many people.  A major road being
  oneway is important to enough people that surely it is important to at
  least one mapper.

  The osm communinity is sufficiently advanced at mapping roads that in
  most places, almost all one-way streets are labeled oneway.

This means that it is a fairly safe conclusion that a road in osm which
is not tagged with oneway= is a two way road.

For electrification=yes|no, I don't think the above argument applies at
all.

And there's the big point: if people are recording true facts and they
are even sort of reasonable, it is somewhere between unkind and
vandalism to remove them.

electrification=no on railways is of course vastly beyond the level of
reasonable enough to record in the db.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20220223/44ddc3f6/attachment-0001.sig>