2015-09-13 23:38 GMT+02:00 Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com>: > On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote: >> >> Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must >> also be tagged for every motorway_link. If not tagged, the oneway=* >> status of this way is undefined. > > Explicitly tagging oneway on links is preferable for obvious reasons, but > you need to be careful with must, which is wrong for two reasons. > > - The wiki can document, but not set out requirements, as people can ignore > the current state of the wiki. > - Your next sentence discusses the lack of oneway > - There is not a concept of formal validity, so must doesn't apply > - Data consumers will make their own decisions
Your concerns are valid and I changed the tone of the proposal with a rename from "obligatory oneway" to "no default oneway". I know the the meaning of "MUST" from IETF RfCs, but "SHOULD" would be more appropriate here. The first sentence about the proposal is now: "Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link." " I also put this sentence in: "The goal of this proposal is removing the implied oneway=yes on highway=motorway_link from documentation. The following implied default oneway=no is also undesireable and could lead to dangerous situations in navigations. " The statement about the routing was already changed, so I will put this on for voting soon if no other objections are coming. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_no_default_oneway Regards, Joachim _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
