Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
I am not saying it's functional, but it is legally consequent. When this stretch of foot-cycleway is busy, what happens is indeed that cyclists get stuck behind pedestrians. It using line with the definition of shared foot-cycle-ways: these are, legally, sidewalks on which bicycles are tolerated, but pedestrians have precedence and cyclists have to dismount if necessary. On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, 21:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Jun 24, 2020, 18:05 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > On 24. Jun 2020, at 15:43, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and > cyclists). > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg > > > > what makes you believe this is mandatory oneway for pedestrians? Looks > like a regular oneway restriction according to the Italian CdS (i.e. > applying to vehicles). AFAIK the CdS does not foresee oneway provisions for > pedestrians. > I could be wrong, but the picture doesn’t seem to prove otherwise > > And making illegal for pedestrians to let bicycle pass them > (by moving to a different lane) would make > this infrastructure even more dysfunctional. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Jun 24, 2020, 18:05 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > On 24. Jun 2020, at 15:43, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and >> cyclists). >> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg >> > > > what makes you believe this is mandatory oneway for pedestrians? Looks like a > regular oneway restriction according to the Italian CdS (i.e. applying to > vehicles). AFAIK the CdS does not foresee oneway provisions for pedestrians. > I could be wrong, but the picture doesn’t seem to prove otherwise > And making illegal for pedestrians to let bicycle pass them (by moving to a different lane) would make this infrastructure even more dysfunctional. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
sent from a phone > On 24. Jun 2020, at 15:43, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and > cyclists). > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg what makes you believe this is mandatory oneway for pedestrians? Looks like a regular oneway restriction according to the Italian CdS (i.e. applying to vehicles). AFAIK the CdS does not foresee oneway provisions for pedestrians. I could be wrong, but the picture doesn’t seem to prove otherwise Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and cyclists). https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 15. Jan 2020, at 12:05, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > > > Pedestrian walking on the carriageway or shoulder is obligated to walk > on the left side of the road. > > > right. Now show me a oneway street that hasn’t a left side ;-) > > Cheers Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
sent from a phone > On 15. Jan 2020, at 12:05, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Pedestrian walking on the carriageway or shoulder is obligated to walk on the > left side of the road. right. Now show me a oneway street that hasn’t a left side ;-) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
15 Jan 2020, 09:51 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Like in "they may not legally walk in the oneway direction"? Which > jurisdiction is this? > In the jurisdictions I am aware of, in absence of a pavement you have to walk > on the road / carriageway. You may not do so only if there are signs that > prohibit pedestrian usage. > Poland. Pedestrian walking on the carriageway or shoulder is obligated to walk on the left side of the road. Ustawa prawo o ruchu drogowym, rozdział 1, art 11 "2. Pieszy idący po poboczu lub jezdni jest obowiązany iść lewą stroną drogi." Not going to be tagged in OSM, as shoulder is not going to be mapped separately from the road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I >> guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no >> > > It's not meaningless at all. It says that although the road is oneway to > vehicular > traffic, pedestrians may walk in either direction. > this is already the commonly agreed, documented since 15 years, meaning of oneway=yes. Nothing added. > This is not always the case: > single-lane roads without a pavement may require that pedestrians only > walk in > the opposite direction to oneway vehicular traffic on safety grounds. > Like in "they may not legally walk in the oneway direction"? Which jurisdiction is this? In the jurisdictions I am aware of, in absence of a pavement you have to walk on the road / carriageway. You may not do so only if there are signs that prohibit pedestrian usage. > The use > of oneway:foot=no makes clear that no such restriction applies to > pedestrians > and that the onewayness of the road applies only to vehicular traffic. > > We use similar schemes for access tags. Why are you having difficulty > with this? > I do not have difficulty with it, it is just meaningless. A similar case for access tags would be motor_vehicle=no and then add a motorcar=no. It doesn't add anything. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski > : >> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer >> 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:46, Philip Barnes wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 14 January 2020, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and > I > > > guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no > > > > > > > It's not meaningless at all. It says that although the road is oneway to > > vehicular > > traffic, pedestrians may walk in either direction. This is not always > the > > case: > > single-lane roads without a pavement may require that pedestrians only > walk > > in > > the opposite direction to oneway vehicular traffic on safety grounds. > > Any real world/GB examples of this? > Nope. But I don't need any. Martin suggested that oneway:foot=no was meaningless. Your request for examples means you're asking a different question, whether or not it is currently necessary to make it clear that a way which is oneway for vehicular traffic is not oneway for pedestrians. There may be no examples of its correct usage anywhere in the world. It's possible there may never be any such examples (but that is not something you or I can guarantee). That wouldn't make the tag meaningless, just unnecessary. The meaning of the tag is perfectly clear to most people here; the (current) necessity for it is arguable. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I > > guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no > > > > It's not meaningless at all. It says that although the road is oneway to > vehicular > traffic, pedestrians may walk in either direction. This is not always the > case: > single-lane roads without a pavement may require that pedestrians only walk > in > the opposite direction to oneway vehicular traffic on safety grounds. Any real world/GB examples of this? Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On 1/14/2020 9:13 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: 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) oneway:foot=yes 89 oneway:foot=-1, 1 occurrence foot:oneway=no 48 foot:oneway=yes 2 foot:backward=designated 45 foot:backward=yes 41 foot:backward=no 40 foot:backward=use_sidepath (not really applicable here) 18 foot:backward=permissive 6 foot:backward=private 1 foot:forward=no 41 foot:forward=designated (not really applicable?) 36 foot:forward=use_sidepath (not really applicable) 23 foot:forward=yes 20 foot:forward=customers 4 (only customers and only one-way?) foot:forward=destination 3 (might be Hotel California) foot:forward=permissive 2 --Jarek Thanks, and I'd like to add to this list: highway=footway + oneway=* 26505 highway=footway + oneway:bicycle=* 2611 highway=footway + piste:oneway=* 1137 (Oh dear, looks like the ski mappers have chosen a different namespace style than the bicycle mappers...) J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I > guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no > It's not meaningless at all. It says that although the road is oneway to vehicular traffic, pedestrians may walk in either direction. This is not always the case: single-lane roads without a pavement may require that pedestrians only walk in the opposite direction to oneway vehicular traffic on safety grounds. The use of oneway:foot=no makes clear that no such restriction applies to pedestrians and that the onewayness of the road applies only to vehicular traffic. We use similar schemes for access tags. Why are you having difficulty with this? -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 08:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > yes, it asks to apply the oneway restriction to foot travel, and the > oneway restriction is: "only drive in this direction". You do not drive > your feet, do you agree? > > In English, the term "oneway" or "one way" can apply to many different things. It can apply to vehicular traffic. It can apply to fluid flow and it can apply to valves controlling fluid flow. It can apply to mechanical devices such as ratchets. As it happens, in OSM, we have only widely used it for motorized vehicular traffic even though it can apply to other non-motorized vehicular traffic (horse and cart, bicycle) and to pedestrians. We've now realized that other modes of transport can also be oneway independent of vehicular traffic along the same way. I see no problem in having foot:oneway (or oneway:foot) because they are not textually the same as "oneway" whilst retaining "oneway" as implicitly meaning "car:oneway." It might be nice to have an explicit car:oneway and then use oneway to mean all modes of transport are oneway, but it's too late to make that change (and it may be the case that although different modes of transport are all oneway, some are oneway in the opposite direction to others). I think you're being overly-pedantic and insufficiently contemplative on this. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski < ja...@piorkowski.ca>: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer > 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) > oneway:foot=yes 89 > oneway:foot=-1, 1 occurrence > > foot:oneway=no 48 > foot:oneway=yes 2 > > foot:backward=designated 45 > foot:backward=yes 41 > foot:backward=no 40 > foot:backward=use_sidepath (not really applicable here) 18 > foot:backward=permissive 6 > foot:backward=private 1 > > foot:forward=no 41 > foot:forward=designated (not really applicable?) 36 > foot:forward=use_sidepath (not really applicable) 23 > foot:forward=yes 20 > foot:forward=customers 4 (only customers and only one-way?) > foot:forward=destination 3 (might be Hotel California) > foot:forward=permissive 2 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. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer 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) oneway:foot=yes 89 oneway:foot=-1, 1 occurrence foot:oneway=no 48 foot:oneway=yes 2 foot:backward=designated 45 foot:backward=yes 41 foot:backward=no 40 foot:backward=use_sidepath (not really applicable here) 18 foot:backward=permissive 6 foot:backward=private 1 foot:forward=no 41 foot:forward=designated (not really applicable?) 36 foot:forward=use_sidepath (not really applicable) 23 foot:forward=yes 20 foot:forward=customers 4 (only customers and only one-way?) foot:forward=destination 3 (might be Hotel California) foot:forward=permissive 2 --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction > applied to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because > "oneway" already has no implication for pedestrian > > That "logic" is not logical. Why would another mapper or a database > user assume that? If I saw this tag as a mapper, it would be logical > to assume that the oneway restriction did indeed apply to foot travel. > yes, it asks to apply the oneway restriction to foot travel, and the oneway restriction is: "only drive in this direction". You do not drive your feet, do you agree? > It is the same as a database user designing a routing application or > renderer - you are not going to assume that a tag is meaningless > (unless it looks like it came from a bad import). > you will have choose the tags you will evaluate and you will likely drop all the rest as meaningless (for your usecase) or insignificant. > > (This sort of pedantic arguement is like claiming that "I don't got no > money" means "I have money" because it is a "double negative", but in > fact double negatives are extremely common in spoken languages as a > means of emphasis, and are perfectly "standard" in many (like Spanish, > Indonesian, and many dialects of English).) > this is a completely different issue, because as you state, the double negative is well defined in English as a means of emphasis. It would be different in German, where it would indeed mean I do have money. Tags, similar to language, depend on conventions, and for OSM tags my opinion is that we should not have the double negative to mean negative, because it seems quite confusing. In logics, "not no" means yes (or unknown etc., it means anything but no). Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural language. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Let me try to describe the basic problem: we are interpreting the key "oneway" with two different meanings: (1) "restrictions for the flow of vehicle-only traffic" for example in the widely used case of mixed-use foot-cycle-ways that are one-way for bicycles. (2) "restrictions for the flow of any type of traffic, including pedestrians" when we talk about using oneway:foot=yes|no|-1 That cannot work unless you can neatly separate the two domains of applicability, which we can't as we have mixed-use ways. We are discussing in circles around that issue. It looks as if definition (1) above is widely used whereas (2) much less so. To me the logical conclusion is we need a separate new key for (2). Let's define it to be the string of (meaningless) characters "oneway_foot". We need to add that all ways with the key "highway" carry by default "oneway_foot=no" in addition to the default "oneway=no". > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
> following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction applied to > pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because "oneway" already > has no implication for pedestrian That "logic" is not logical. Why would another mapper or a database user assume that? If I saw this tag as a mapper, it would be logical to assume that the oneway restriction did indeed apply to foot travel. It is the same as a database user designing a routing application or renderer - you are not going to assume that a tag is meaningless (unless it looks like it came from a bad import). (This sort of pedantic arguement is like claiming that "I don't got no money" means "I have money" because it is a "double negative", but in fact double negatives are extremely common in spoken languages as a means of emphasis, and are perfectly "standard" in many (like Spanish, Indonesian, and many dialects of English).) -Joseph Eisenberg On 1/14/20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:08 Uhr schrieb Jmapb : > >> IMO they're both ugly. Don't love -1, and don't love introducing a new >> backward/forward scheme with basically the same meaning and possibly >> ambiguous interactions with the older oneway scheme. > > > > the idea that oneway is about "driving" and not about "walking" is quite > old, you can find it since 2007: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:oneway=55990 > "Description Oneway streets are streets where you are only allowed to drive > in one direction." > > This is also what the access page says: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#One-way_restrictions > > I believe it is beneficial to agree on the colon as separator for combining > individual tags, e.g. > oneway:bicycle=no means is composed of "oneway" and "bicycle", as opposed > to the hypothetical oneway_bicycle which would be a completely new tag > "oneway bicycle". While it would be the same to write "bicycle:oneway", the > general rules about tag composition order discourage this (hence it is used > orders of magnitude less) > > following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction applied > to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because "oneway" > already has no implication for pedestrian, so the further restriction for > "foot" will not change it, you may not drive your feet in the other > direction. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
>(a path is too narrow for a motorcar, so That's a common misdescription. A track can't be so narrow a car wouldn't fit, but most built highway=path ways are wider than that. -- alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:08 Uhr schrieb Jmapb : > IMO they're both ugly. Don't love -1, and don't love introducing a new > backward/forward scheme with basically the same meaning and possibly > ambiguous interactions with the older oneway scheme. the idea that oneway is about "driving" and not about "walking" is quite old, you can find it since 2007: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:oneway=55990 "Description Oneway streets are streets where you are only allowed to drive in one direction." This is also what the access page says: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#One-way_restrictions I believe it is beneficial to agree on the colon as separator for combining individual tags, e.g. oneway:bicycle=no means is composed of "oneway" and "bicycle", as opposed to the hypothetical oneway_bicycle which would be a completely new tag "oneway bicycle". While it would be the same to write "bicycle:oneway", the general rules about tag composition order discourage this (hence it is used orders of magnitude less) following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction applied to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because "oneway" already has no implication for pedestrian, so the further restriction for "foot" will not change it, you may not drive your feet in the other direction. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On 1/13/2020 9:43 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen wrote: Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary. What if the road is one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst pedestrians go from B to A? You beat me to it! I know I've seen a footway on the verge of the roadway signed, 'WALK ON LEFT, FACING TRAFFIC.' If the road was a dual-carriageway (it might have been, I don't recall now), then we'd have had exactly that situation. "Just reverse the way" isn't a solution when it's forward for one mode and backward for another. The "traditional" (by my observation) way to tag this would be: highway=residential oneway=yes oneway:foot=-1 Using the forward/backward tags, it would be: highway=residential oneway=yes foot:forward=no foot:backward=yes IMO they're both ugly. Don't love -1, and don't love introducing a new backward/forward scheme with basically the same meaning and possibly ambiguous interactions with the older oneway scheme. ...Scouting around on Overpass, I found one footway that was tagged something like this: highway=footway foot:forward=designated foot:backward=yes I think it was something like a nature trail or historic walk where there's a designed direction of foot traffic but it's not an actual restriction. That's the best justification I've seen for the foot:forward/foot:backward tags, though of course one could conjur up some value like oneway=intended that could mean the same thing. J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > That argument isn't convincing > > In Openstreetmap the keys are arbitrary strings; "oneway:foot" is no > more relate to oneway than "not_oneway" or "phoneway". > Technically you are correct, but there are discussions about it. Some people would want to have a more formal "grammar" so that combining several tags (or "conditions") gets standardized. It makes the creation of new tags easier and can imply clear rules for data consumers. The structure was documented in the conditional tagging proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions#Tagging but it had already been around for some time then. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
oneway:foot=-1 would still work (Like oneway=-1 is very rarely needed for traffic allowed only in direction opposite to way direction) 13 Jan 2020, 15:43 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen wrote: > >> Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary. What if the road >> is >> one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst >> pedestrians go from B to A? >> > > You beat me to it! > > I know I've seen a footway on the verge of the roadway signed, 'WALK > ON LEFT, FACING TRAFFIC.' If the road was a dual-carriageway (it might > have been, I don't recall now), then we'd have had exactly that > situation. "Just reverse the way" isn't a solution when it's forward > for one mode and backward for another. > > -- > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On 1/13/2020 9:46 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the highway in question. More specifically: - I would expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on footway. No. There are thousands of footways with bicycle=yes|official|designated to make them mixed foot-cycleways Sure, there are many footways with allowance for an extra sort of traffic, most commonly bicycles. If these footways are tagged oneway=yes, I'd expect the other kinds of traffic to follow that rule too, unless overridden with e.g. oneway:bicycle=no. - I would also expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on pedestrian, path, and cycleway -- unless explicitly nullified with a oneway:foot=no tag. No. There are thousands of pedestrain, path, cycleway with bicycle=yes|official|designated to make them mixed foot-cycleways I don't understand the "No." Nothing I wrote precludes using these ways for both foot and bicycle traffic. Cycleways are primarily for bicycles, so I'd expect a oneway tag on a cycleway to primarily describe the bicycle traffic. If foot traffic is also permitted on a oneway cycleway, I'd expect it to follow the same oneway rule, unless explicitly overridden with a oneway:foot tag. Pedestrian and path are a little more ambiguous, but again, I'd expect the oneway tag to apply to whatever the predominant traffic is. And if tagged oneway, I'd expect that oneway restriction to apply to foot traffic unless overridden with a oneway:foot tag. I'm not *advocating* for this to be a rule -- I'm just describing how I'm accustomed to interpreting the existing tags. As we know, the documentation is imperfect. If there's a better way of doing this, great! Let's document it. J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
> > Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different > implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I > would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the > highway in question. > > More specifically: > > - I would expect a oneway=yes tag apply to foot traffic on footway. > No. There are thousands of footways with bicycle=yes|official|designated to make them mixed foot-cycleways - I would also expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on > pedestrian, path, and cycleway -- unless explicitly nullified with a > oneway:foot=no tag. > No. There are thousands of pedestrain, path, cycleway with bicycle=yes|official|designated to make them mixed foot-cycleways - I would not expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on > track, service, unclassified, residential, or any larger roadway, unless > made explicit with a oneway:foot=yes tag. > OK Of course I understand that from a data consumer's point of view it's > irritating when a tag has different meanings in different contexts -- > especially if these differences are not formally documented. > It also drives the mappers mad Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen wrote: > Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary. What if the road is > one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst > pedestrians go from B to A? You beat me to it! I know I've seen a footway on the verge of the roadway signed, 'WALK ON LEFT, FACING TRAFFIC.' If the road was a dual-carriageway (it might have been, I don't recall now), then we'd have had exactly that situation. "Just reverse the way" isn't a solution when it's forward for one mode and backward for another. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of > this tag is obvios. > > "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive. > Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary. What if the road is one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst pedestrians go from B to A? I was taught, many years ago, that if there was no pavement you walked on the side of the road that faced oncoming traffic so you could see cars on your side of the road coming towards you rather than have them come up behind you. This principle might be legally enforced on a road which is one-way to both pedestrians and traffic on safety grounds. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
That argument isn't convincing In Openstreetmap the keys are arbitrary strings; "oneway:foot" is no more relate to oneway than "not_oneway" or "phoneway". I don't believe anyone will be confused by a tag like oneway:foot=yes, but if you prefer, changing the order to foot:oneway=* makes it clear that this is not a "subtag" of "oneway=" somehow, but rather something about access for people on foot. - Joseph Eisenberg On 1/13/20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > >> I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of >> this tag is obvios. >> >> "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive. > > > > According to some contestants, the meaning isn't obvious, as there is the > contradiction of "oneway" never applying to pedestrians and having a subtag > which behaves as if it did? > Similar self-contradicting tag would be > > highway=path AND motorcar=yes > > (a path is too narrow for a motorcar, so even if you add motorcar=yes, it > will not be accessible, for physical reasons): > > Cheers > Martin > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of > this tag is obvios. > > "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive. According to some contestants, the meaning isn't obvious, as there is the contradiction of "oneway" never applying to pedestrians and having a subtag which behaves as if it did? Similar self-contradicting tag would be highway=path AND motorcar=yes (a path is too narrow for a motorcar, so even if you add motorcar=yes, it will not be accessible, for physical reasons): Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of this tag is obvios. "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive. - Joseph Eisenberg On 1/13/20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian >> highways" > > > > that's not clear at all, apparently it should not contain > highway=pedestrian but only (path, footway and track). Surely I would not > call a track a pedestrian highway. Anyway, on this list of highway types, > oneway=yes would clearly lead to major problems if the meaning would be > changed to apply to pedestrians. > > IMHO the best solution on the table is > foot:backward=no > > Can you explain where you see issues with this? > > Cheers > Martin > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian highways" that's not clear at all, apparently it should not contain highway=pedestrian but only (path, footway and track). Surely I would not call a track a pedestrian highway. Anyway, on this list of highway types, oneway=yes would clearly lead to major problems if the meaning would be changed to apply to pedestrians. IMHO the best solution on the table is foot:backward=no Can you explain where you see issues with this? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian highways" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On 1/11/2020 7:13 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97010406 - It was originally a vehicle route but was changed to pedestrian with painted bike and foot lanes. For motor vehicles, only emergency and specifically permitted delivery traffic is allowed. - It was *always* one-way, and the one-way signs are still there. Bicycles and permitted motor vehicles are required to follow the one-way signs. - Pedestrians can move in either direction, and this is explicitly indicated by painted marks in the pedestrian lane. (Thus there's a oneway:foot=no tag, and it's worth noting that OSRM respects oneway:foot and routes pedestrians "backwards" but GraphHopper does not.) That's a good counterexample - thanks. I was thinking of a somewhat similar example of Stanley Park Seawall in Vancouver, which is also one-way for cyclists, but is mapped with separate ways for footway and cycleway. However the Seawall has a physical separation in form of a small curb between the two modes, so that's defensible. From Esri imagery it looks like Prospect Park ways are separated by mode only with paint, so having separate ways for the modes is not as elegant or arguably correct. So it looks like we will indeed need a new tag to specify one-way-ness for pedestrians. Correct, the Prospect Park drives have paint separating the lanes, but nothing physical. So mapping separate ways would be unorthodox. Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the highway in question. More specifically: - I would expect a oneway=yes tag apply to foot traffic on footway. - I would also expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on pedestrian, path, and cycleway -- unless explicitly nullified with a oneway:foot=no tag. - I would not expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on track, service, unclassified, residential, or any larger roadway, unless made explicit with a oneway:foot=yes tag. Of course I understand that from a data consumer's point of view it's irritating when a tag has different meanings in different contexts -- especially if these differences are not formally documented. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are > > one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that > > is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted > > as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto > > already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way > > that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this > > scheme). Perhaps the only other thing could be highway=path, where > > there could be some ambiguity with bicycles. But at least we can avoid > > the "street with sidewalk" interpretation. Does anyone have > > counterexamples? > > Not sure if it's a counterexample, but here's a hw=pedestrian in a park > in Brooklyn, New York: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97010406 > > - It was originally a vehicle route but was changed to pedestrian with > painted bike and foot lanes. For motor vehicles, only emergency and > specifically permitted delivery traffic is allowed. > - It was *always* one-way, and the one-way signs are still there. > Bicycles and permitted motor vehicles are required to follow the one-way > signs. > - Pedestrians can move in either direction, and this is explicitly > indicated by painted marks in the pedestrian lane. (Thus there's a > oneway:foot=no tag, and it's worth noting that OSRM respects oneway:foot > and routes pedestrians "backwards" but GraphHopper does not.) That's a good counterexample - thanks. I was thinking of a somewhat similar example of Stanley Park Seawall in Vancouver, which is also one-way for cyclists, but is mapped with separate ways for footway and cycleway. However the Seawall has a physical separation in form of a small curb between the two modes, so that's defensible. From Esri imagery it looks like Prospect Park ways are separated by mode only with paint, so having separate ways for the modes is not as elegant or arguably correct. So it looks like we will indeed need a new tag to specify one-way-ness for pedestrians. --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
12 Jan 2020, 00:28 by ja...@piorkowski.ca: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski >> : >> >>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are >>> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that >>> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted >>> as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto >>> already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way >>> that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this >>> scheme). >>> >> >> there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other >> countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major >> precaution) on footways: >> http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg >> > > Are there many that are one-way for cyclists or for pedestrians but not both? > Footways with oneway bicycle traffic allowed. Usually tagged as highway=footway + bicycle=yes + oneway=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
>> oneway=yes can be interpreted as referring to pedestrians on footways (it >> looks like osm-carto already does this? The Openstreetmap-carto style shows one-way arrows on highway=footway and highway=path because these features can also be used by bicycles in many places. - Joseph Eisenberg On 1/12/20, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski >> : >>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are >>> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that >>> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted >>> as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto >>> already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way >>> that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this >>> scheme). >> >> there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other >> countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major >> precaution) on footways: >> http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg > > Are there many that are one-way for cyclists or for pedestrians but not > both? > > --Jarek > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski > : >> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are >> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that >> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted >> as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto >> already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way >> that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this >> scheme). > > there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other > countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major > precaution) on footways: > http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg Are there many that are one-way for cyclists or for pedestrians but not both? --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this scheme). Perhaps the only other thing could be highway=path, where there could be some ambiguity with bicycles. But at least we can avoid the "street with sidewalk" interpretation. Does anyone have counterexamples? Not sure if it's a counterexample, but here's a hw=pedestrian in a park in Brooklyn, New York: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97010406 - It was originally a vehicle route but was changed to pedestrian with painted bike and foot lanes. For motor vehicles, only emergency and specifically permitted delivery traffic is allowed. - It was *always* one-way, and the one-way signs are still there. Bicycles and permitted motor vehicles are required to follow the one-way signs. - Pedestrians can move in either direction, and this is explicitly indicated by painted marks in the pedestrian lane. (Thus there's a oneway:foot=no tag, and it's worth noting that OSRM respects oneway:foot and routes pedestrians "backwards" but GraphHopper does not.) Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski < ja...@piorkowski.ca>: > I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are > one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that > is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted > as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto > already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way > that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this > scheme). > there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major precaution) on footways: http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 04:48, Volker Schmidt wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging >> > wrote: >> >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, >> > >> > That tag on footways would apply only to walkers. >> >> well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and only >> apply to bicycles? >> What about highway=pedestrian? >> > The problem with oneway=yes|no, if it were to apply to pedestrians as well, > would be on all mixed-use ways. > This would exclude highway=pedestrian as this tag excludes all vehicles by > definition (careful if it's an "area pedonale" in Italy, which allows > bicycles by default and hence requires a bicycle=yes in OSM-speak, but that's > beside the point). I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this scheme). Perhaps the only other thing could be highway=path, where there could be some ambiguity with bicycles. But at least we can avoid the "street with sidewalk" interpretation. Does anyone have counterexamples? --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
The problem with oneway=yes|no, if it were to apply to pedestrians as well, would be on all mixed-use ways. This would exclude highway=pedestrian as this tag excludes all vehicles by definition (careful if it's an "area pedonale" in Italy, which allows bicycles by default and hence requires a bicycle=yes in OSM-speak, but that's beside the point). On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > > >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, > > > > That tag on footways would apply only to walkers. > > > well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and > only apply to bicycles? > What about highway=pedestrian? > > Cheers Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
sent from a phone > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, > > That tag on footways would apply only to walkers. well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and only apply to bicycles? What about highway=pedestrian? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 22:04 Dave F via Tagging, wrote: > On 09/01/2020 20:17, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, > > That tag on footways would apply only to walkers. > > DaveF > ... and what about all the roads that either have no separate sidewalks or do not yet have them mapped, or all the mixed foot-cycle paths? We talk hundreds of thousands of ways here. > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On 09/01/2020 20:17, Volker Schmidt wrote: oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, That tag on footways would apply only to walkers. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, for very practical reasons: otherwise we would have a massive problem with all one-way streets without separately mapped sidewalks. On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 02:16 Jarek Piórkowski, wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > Although unusual, oneway on pedestrian highways (path, footway, track) is > > possible in some places. > > > > Cases of oneway pedestrian traffic includes some hiking trails, border > crossing, > > exit-only passages and more. > > > > How to tag this? > > Would just like to note that oneway=yes is established on > highway=steps (usually with conveying=yes, i.e., an escalator) to the > point where a major data consumer openstreetmap-carto supports it, > e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367618960 > > Arguably escalators are a special case since unlike most footways > there is a mechanical component to them. However I would still be > interested in seeing any tagging for footways maintain at least some > consistency with it. > > If this is hugely problematic for data consumers I would not be > opposed to tagging like highway=footway + foot:backward=no, with > oneway=yes allowed as optional for human readability. > > --Jarek > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Although unusual, oneway on pedestrian highways (path, footway, track) is > possible in some places. > > Cases of oneway pedestrian traffic includes some hiking trails, border > crossing, > exit-only passages and more. > > How to tag this? Would just like to note that oneway=yes is established on highway=steps (usually with conveying=yes, i.e., an escalator) to the point where a major data consumer openstreetmap-carto supports it, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367618960 Arguably escalators are a special case since unlike most footways there is a mechanical component to them. However I would still be interested in seeing any tagging for footways maintain at least some consistency with it. If this is hugely problematic for data consumers I would not be opposed to tagging like highway=footway + foot:backward=no, with oneway=yes allowed as optional for human readability. --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Am Mi., 8. Jan. 2020 um 22:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > But sometimes it is used on paths and footways to indicate that such way is > oneway for pedestrians (especially in cases where only pedestrians are > allowed) > to use it. > I'd put it like this: "with the intention to indicate that such way is oneway for pedestrians", because oneway can not apply to pedestrians, they are excluded by the general definition, and if we changed it, we would break a lot more than those few exceptions of actual oneway for pedestrians. > There is oneway:foot=yes but it is considered as problematic because > "According to how conditional restriction syntax works, adding a mode of > transport such as :foot only ever limits who the tag applies to, it > doesn't > normally add someone it applies to." > ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:oneway#Pedestrian_oneways > and > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:oneway:foot ) > > Personally I consider oneway:bicycle=yes or oneway:foot=yes > as not problematic in any way, I want to check whatever I am alone in this. > it would be introducing another exception, for no good reason, there is already foot:backward=no with the same intended meaning and without the problem, as unlike oneway:foot it is consistent with the well introduced concept of nested tagging. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?
Although unusual, oneway on pedestrian highways (path, footway, track) is possible in some places. Cases of oneway pedestrian traffic includes some hiking trails, border crossing, exit-only passages and more. How to tag this? oneway=yes is currently described on OSM Wiki as applying only to vehicles - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway Also, it is sometimes used on ways such as highway=footway + bicycle=yes + oneway=yes to indicate that such way is oneway for cyclists. But sometimes it is used on paths and footways to indicate that such way is oneway for pedestrians (especially in cases where only pedestrians are allowed) to use it. There is oneway:foot=yes but it is considered as problematic because "According to how conditional restriction syntax works, adding a mode of transport such as :foot only ever limits who the tag applies to, it doesn't normally add someone it applies to." ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:oneway#Pedestrian_oneways and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:oneway:foot ) Personally I consider oneway:bicycle=yes or oneway:foot=yes as not problematic in any way, I want to check whatever I am alone in this. foot:backward=no was proposed as superior solution to oneway:foot=yes but personally I really dislike this. This is posted as there is some ongoing discussion on Wiki and I am interested in experience/opinions of more people. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
