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,
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
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
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:
> >
> >
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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
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
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
> 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
>(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
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
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!
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
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,
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
>
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian highways"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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
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,
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
>> 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 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
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
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
>
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
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
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?
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
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
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
>
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?
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
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
48 matches
Mail list logo
