Not arguing, but
oneway:foot = 5024
foot:backward = 394
foot:forward = 300
Personally, I would interpret that as time that the wiki had a rewrite! :-)
Thanks
Graeme
On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 19:19, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 11 Sep 2023, at 08:39, Graeme
The fundamental issue is that there are postal addresses and what might
be called "civil addresses" or "physical addresses" ('locational' I
understand but is not normal English usage). In the US, we also have
"911 dispatchable location" which is all about getting there physically
and is
sent from a phone
> On 11 Sep 2023, at 08:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> foot:oneway=yes / oneway:foot=yes?
as „oneway“ is defined for vehicles only, „oneway:foot“ doesn’t make a lot of
sense. The wiki suggests „foot:backward“ or „foot:forward“ as alternatives that
follow the generic
On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 16:22, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> The problem is that we frequently have cycleways or food-cycle-ways that
> are legally oneway for cyclists, but not for pedestrians. They are tagged
> "oneway=yes". I agree we need a oneway tag for pedestrians, but it cannot
> be a simple
The problem is that we frequently have cycleways or food-cycle-ways that
are legally oneway for cyclists, but not for pedestrians. They are tagged
"oneway=yes". I agree we need a oneway tag for pedestrians, but it cannot
be a simple oneway=yes because that is already in use with a different
Sep 10, 2023, 23:37 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 01:25, Niels Elgaard Larsen <> elga...@agol.dk> >
> wrote:
>
>> Volker Schmidt:
>> > Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not
>> for pedestrians.
>>
>>
>> We do have a lot of
