Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 7:06 AM, LeTopographeFou 
wrote:

> Hi
>
> According to the waterway=stream wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):
>
> *If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e. the
> way direction follows the flow)*
>
> As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways
> according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes.
>
> Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete oneway=yes
> tags for streams?
>
Not any undocumented purpose, but oneway=yes would indicate that all
traffic on the waterway is legally obligated only to go in that direction.
A rare, but possible situation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Aun Johnsen]

In the rare cases of waterways flow in both directions due to tidal forces or 
other phenomenon, it is highly unlikely these are one way, and if so, most 
likely conditional.

Besides conditional regulations of navigation is often (though not always) 
regulated by a signal station or a traffic control authority
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[David Marchal]

Note that, although exceptional, some waterways can flow both ways, according 
to tidal, floods, if a connected estavelle is absorbing or discharging water... 
Even if it is unlikely, this tag could be of some use to highlight the fact 
that the waterway is not subject to such stream variations.

From: letopographe...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 14:06:23 +0200
Subject: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways


  


  
  
Hi

According to the waterway=stream wiki page
  (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):


  If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be
  downstream (i.e. the way direction follows the flow)


As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593
  ways according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes.

Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete
  oneway=yes tags for streams?



The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals...

Yours,





-- 
LeTopographeFou
  


___
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] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Dave F]

On 18/09/2016 15:35, Malcolm Herring wrote:
This is a dangerous dependency - if the way is reversed by another 
mapper, the all "oneway" tags become invalid.




All tags depend on other tags. If any tag is changed from being correct, 
data will become "invalid"


Dave F.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 18 set 2016, alle ore 16:35, Malcolm Herring 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> This is a dangerous dependency - if the way is reversed by another mapper, 
> the all "oneway" tags become invalid.


common osm  editing software is caring for these dependencies and suggesting to 
reverse certain tag values or issuing a warning in case a way is reversed. 
Navigation on water is no different here compared to land based navigation.


cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 18 set 2016, alle ore 12:00, Malcolm Herring 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Values such as "yes", "forward", "reverse", "-1", etc are all meaningless to 
> those who actually navigate the waterways. As Aun said, the commonly 
> understood terms are "upstream" & "downstream".


I don't question this, but as a matter of fact, there is a total of 8 instances 
with  key variations of upstream and downstream that I could find in taginfo 
globally, so this is something that your software could present to users, but 
it's not something people are actually using as tags.
http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=upstream

there's also a slightly bigger number of these words in values, but much fewer 
than oneway on waterways: http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=downstream#values


cheers 
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Aun Johnsen]

> On Sep 18, 2016, at 10:50, Aun Johnsen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 18, 2016, at 09:00, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>> 
>> How could the concept of upstream and downstream be applied to canals
>> and lakes? 
> 
> Open, and non-flowing waterways have a direction of buoyage, that can be 
> interpreted as direction of flow. This system is defined per country, for 
> example Norwegian open water keep green to starboard when sailing North or in 
> fjords, this can be interpreted as water flowing towards South.
> 
> I cannot give a more general concept, as each country defines this rule for 
> themselves.
> 
> For the Great Lakes I believe (but will have to check up to confirm), have 
> defined water flow towards the lower lakes.
> 
> Aun

Besides, forgot to mention, that in open waters you would not have restricted 
oneway canals, but more complex Traffic Separation Systems, which have full 
tagging specifications in the seamark:* tagging scheme.

Aun
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Aun Johnsen]

> On Sep 18, 2016, at 09:00, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> How could the concept of upstream and downstream be applied to canals
> and lakes? 

Open, and non-flowing waterways have a direction of buoyage, that can be 
interpreted as direction of flow. This system is defined per country, for 
example Norwegian open water keep green to starboard when sailing North or in 
fjords, this can be interpreted as water flowing towards South.

I cannot give a more general concept, as each country defines this rule for 
themselves.

For the Great Lakes I believe (but will have to check up to confirm), have 
defined water flow towards the lower lakes.

Aun
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Colin Smale]

Malcom, the values for "oneway" and all the "forward" and "backward"
subkey business are geometric directions related to the order of the
nodes in the OSM way, and not (always) linked to geographical concepts.
Nobody navigates based on raw OSM data, on the roads or on the water.
The values have to be unambiguously interpretable by a computer, and are
not intended for direct human consumption. In the context of a river
with a clear flow direction, then upstream and downstream might be
unambiguous. In a tidal estuary though, where the actual flow direction
may often be opposite to the natural flow of the river, is it then
completely clear? I am not particularly a nautical type, maybe you could
help here?

How could the concept of upstream and downstream be applied to canals
and lakes? 

//colin 

On 2016-09-18 12:00, Malcolm Herring wrote:

> On 17/09/2016 23:08, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> Martin, are you suggesting to drop the convention for the way direction
>> that it goes with the flow? Or are you OK with oneway=reverse?
> 
> Values such as "yes", "forward", "reverse", "-1", etc are all meaningless to 
> those who actually navigate the waterways. As Aun said, the commonly 
> understood terms are "upstream" & "downstream".
> 
> ___
> 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] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Malcolm Herring]

On 17/09/2016 23:08, Colin Smale wrote:

Martin, are you suggesting to drop the convention for the way direction
that it goes with the flow? Or are you OK with oneway=reverse?


Values such as "yes", "forward", "reverse", "-1", etc are all 
meaningless to those who actually navigate the waterways. As Aun said, 
the commonly understood terms are "upstream" & "downstream".



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Colin Smale]

Sorry if I misinterpreted you. I understand all about route relations,
but the fact remains they are not in place everywhere. They are not
essential for navigation, but oneway restrictions are. 

If you are so disappointed that I am unaware of the so many reasons why
route relations are preferable in this case, please enlighten me. Maybe
an example would help?

//colin 

On 2016-09-18 11:31, Dave F wrote:

> On 17/09/2016 16:05, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> So saying you can only map these short restrictions by creating a route 
>> relation for the whole length sounds a bit excessive to me.
> 
> I never said any such thing. 
> 
> Router relations are preferable so many reasons. Disappointing you're unaware 
> of that.
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> ___
> 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] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Dave F]

On 17/09/2016 16:05, Colin Smale wrote:
So saying you can only map these short restrictions by creating a 
route relation for the whole length sounds a bit excessive to me.


I never said any such thing.

Router relations are preferable so many reasons. Disappointing you're 
unaware of that.


Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 18 set 2016, alle ore 00:08, Colin Smale  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Martin, are you suggesting to drop the convention for the way direction that 
> it goes with the flow? Or are you OK with oneway=reverse?


the latter, or oneway=-1
FWIW, the is also a tag flow_direction (200 times), FlowDir (500) and 
oneway:flow (4000), but if we went by usage alone, the tag would be called 
NHD:FLOWDIR (46.000) ;-)
http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=flow
I would only tag the flow direction explicitly if there was a particular 
situation (e.g. "both")

cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 17 set 2016, alle ore 14:20, Andy Townsend  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> I've certainly used "oneway=yes" on inland waterways to document signed 
> traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense.


+1, this is the meaning of the oneway tag on waterways, don't remove it unless 
it's wrong 


cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-09-17 16:36, Dave F wrote:

> Clarification: I'm meant a route relation for the whole canal, not just to 
> define travel direction.

That's exactly my point... The whole canal may be hundreds of km long,
and the section where oneway vs. flow direction is actually an issue
might be as short as 100m. We are only talking about signposted
restrictions like "no entry", which are (compared to the road network)
pretty rare. So saying you can only map these short restrictions by
creating a route relation for the whole length sounds a bit excessive to
me. 

Flow directions in canals may change many times along the route anyway,
and sometimes the flow may be almost undiscernable.  

//colin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Dave F]

Clarification: I'm meant a route relation for the whole canal, not just 
to define travel direction.


On 17/09/2016 13:45, Colin Smale wrote:


I would expect that the situation where the flow direction conflicts 
with the traffic direction is likely to be quite short - under 
bridges, around obstacles etc. In these cases we could always call on 
our old friend "oneway=-1" or "oneway=reverse" to mean "traffic 
direction is opposite to the flow direction". Having to create a route 
relation is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.


//colin

On 2016-09-17 14:35, Dave F wrote:


I've seen it used on navigable canals to indicate traffic direction.
If there is a route relation I think it should be indicate with 
forward/backward roles.

If not then for clarity, maybe something like traffic_flow=backwards?
Adding a route relation would be preferable though.

Dave F.

On 17/09/2016 13:20, Andy Townsend wrote:
I've certainly used "oneway=yes" on inland waterways to document 
signed traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense.
There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in 
error to indicate water flow direction, but you'd need to ask 
whoever the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common 
sense).

Cheers,
Andy
*From: *LeTopographeFou
*Sent: *Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17
*To: *tagging@openstreetmap.org
*Reply To: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
*Subject: *[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways


Hi

According to the waterway=stream wiki page 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):


/If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream 
(i.e. the way direction follows the flow)/


As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways 
according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes.


Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete 
oneway=yes tags for streams?


The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals...

Yours,


--
LeTopographeFou


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
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] Use of oneway=yes on waterways (Colin Smale)

[Aun Johnsen]

For waterways I find upstream/downstream more suitable to indicate direction of 
navigational channel. These terms are also represented in maritime maps and 
publications. counter_flaw, reversed, and backwards all seems odd for marine 
people.

A typical description in a Pilots Guide (traffic descriptions for marine use) 
would be “Channel is used for upstream traffic”, and if not clear by 
navigational buoys, the map would have “Upstream channel” or similar term 
printed if not located in a sidenote on the map.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[LeTopographeFou]

I did not think of traffic directions, good point! I think oneway makes 
sense better than traffic_direction. This would means that oneway apply 
to traffic whether it is on ground, water, air, rail... much more easier 
for routing engines (and for amphibian vehicles such as Duck tours!).


The usecase I've originaly found (but I did not check all 17596 usage) 
was a usage for intermitent streams (and some which are culverts!) in 
the middle of the desert of Colorado. In this specific case I don't 
think any traffic is feasible.


So the question now is: does oneway apply to the direction of the stream 
or to the direction of the traffic?


 * The wiki pages says oneway is used to "indicate the access
   restriction on highways and other linear features"
   (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway).
 * The wiki requires to draw waterways downward (which makes sense for me)
 * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Inland_navigation says nothing
   about traffic directions (but I think it's a real need)
 * JOSM stays silent on this one.

So I would say that oneway is valid for traffic directions on waterways 
and oneway=yes means that this part of the waterway can only be sailed 
downward. If my understanding is right, I propose to update the waterway 
and oneway pages to say that oneway can be used on waterways to 
represent the traffic direction.


But does it means that a river should be forked under a bridge whenever 
traffic directions go under different arches?


Yours,

LeTopographeFou

Le 17/09/2016 à 14:45, Colin Smale a écrit :


I would expect that the situation where the flow direction conflicts 
with the traffic direction is likely to be quite short - under 
bridges, around obstacles etc. In these cases we could always call on 
our old friend "oneway=-1" or "oneway=reverse" to mean "traffic 
direction is opposite to the flow direction". Having to create a route 
relation is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.


//colin

On 2016-09-17 14:35, Dave F wrote:


I've seen it used on navigable canals to indicate traffic direction.
If there is a route relation I think it should be indicate with 
forward/backward roles.

If not then for clarity, maybe something like traffic_flow=backwards?
Adding a route relation would be preferable though.

Dave F.

On 17/09/2016 13:20, Andy Townsend wrote:
I've certainly used "oneway=yes" on inland waterways to document 
signed traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense.
There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in 
error to indicate water flow direction, but you'd need to ask 
whoever the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common 
sense).

Cheers,
Andy
*From: *LeTopographeFou
*Sent: *Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17
*To: *tagging@openstreetmap.org
*Reply To: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
*Subject: *[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways


Hi

According to the waterway=stream wiki page 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):


/If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream 
(i.e. the way direction follows the flow)/


As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways 
according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes.


Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete 
oneway=yes tags for streams?


The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals...

Yours,


--
LeTopographeFou


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
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] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Colin Smale]

I would expect that the situation where the flow direction conflicts
with the traffic direction is likely to be quite short - under bridges,
around obstacles etc. In these cases we could always call on our old
friend "oneway=-1" or "oneway=reverse" to mean "traffic direction is
opposite to the flow direction". Having to create a route relation is a
bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

//colin 

On 2016-09-17 14:35, Dave F wrote:

> I've seen it used on navigable canals to indicate traffic direction. 
> If there is a route relation I think it should be indicate with 
> forward/backward roles.
> If not then for clarity, maybe something like traffic_flow=backwards?
> Adding a route relation would be preferable though.
> 
> Dave F. 
> 
> On 17/09/2016 13:20, Andy Townsend wrote: 
> I've certainly used "oneway=yes" on inland waterways to document signed 
> traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense. 
> 
> There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in error to 
> indicate water flow direction, but you'd need to ask whoever the previous 
> mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common sense). 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Andy 
> 
> FROM: LeTopographeFou 
> SENT: Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17 
> TO: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> REPLY TO: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> SUBJECT: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways 
> 
> Hi 
> 
> According to the waterway=stream wiki page 
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream): 
> 
> _If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e. the way 
> direction follows the flow)_ 
> 
> As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways according 
> to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes. 
> 
> Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete oneway=yes 
> tags for streams? 
> 
> The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals... 
> 
> Yours, 
> 
> -- 
> LeTopographeFou
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
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] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Dave F]

I've seen it used on navigable canals to indicate traffic direction.
If there is a route relation I think it should be indicate with 
forward/backward roles.

If not then for clarity, maybe something like traffic_flow=backwards?
Adding a route relation would be preferable though.

Dave F.

On 17/09/2016 13:20, Andy Townsend wrote:
I've certainly used "oneway=yes" on inland waterways to document 
signed traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense.


There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in 
error to indicate water flow direction, but you'd need to ask whoever 
the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common sense).


Cheers,
Andy


*From: *LeTopographeFou
*Sent: *Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17
*To: *tagging@openstreetmap.org
*Reply To: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
*Subject: *[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways


Hi

According to the waterway=stream wiki page 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):


/If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream
(i.e. the way direction follows the flow)/

As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways 
according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes.


Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete 
oneway=yes tags for streams?


The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals...

Yours,


--
LeTopographeFou



___
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] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Andy Townsend]

  I've certainly used "_oneway_=yes" on inland waterways to document signed traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense.There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in error to indicate water flow direction, but you'd need to ask whoever the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common sense).Cheers,AndyFrom: LeTopographeFouSent: Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgReply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolsSubject: [Tagging] Use of _oneway_=yes on waterways
  


  
  
Hi
According to the waterway=stream wiki page
  (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):

  If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be
  downstream (i.e. the way direction follows the flow)

As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593
  ways according to taginfo, 0.23%) with _oneway_=yes.
Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete
  _oneway_=yes tags for streams?

The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals...
Yours,


-- 
LeTopographeFou
  



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[LeTopographeFou]

Hi

According to the waterway=stream wiki page 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):


   /If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e.
   the way direction follows the flow)/

As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways 
according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes.


Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete 
oneway=yes tags for streams?


The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals...

Yours,


--
LeTopographeFou

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging