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

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2022-02-23 at 09:40 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> 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
It depends where they are.

In town and city centres oneway streets are often the norm, so adding
oneway=no to the odd one that isn't shows that a mapper has checked and
it hasn't been missed and would prompt another mapper to go and have a
look.

> 
>   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.
Not everywhere, I would not use it on rural roads or in modern
developments but it is certainly important in town/city centres where
the streetplan was laid out hundreds (or more) years ago.


Phil (trigpoint)