Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

I don't think that oneway=yes on a hiking route causes confusion. It doesn't in real life, so why should it in OSM? Even if there were ways that a pedestrian cannot legally walk against the direction, routers/navigators always check all individual ways , so there is no risk of steering pedestrians

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Hopeful to come to a conclusion, I would like to propose to edit the Wiki with the following: Current text on page route=hiking: oneway yes/no/cw/ccw (optional) Use oneway=yes to indicate that the route is to be walked in only one direction, according to the signposts on the ground

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 07:38:45AM +0200, s8evq wrote: > Another attempt at summarizing the current situation: > > How should we included the direction? > > - Andy Townsend suggested "Explicit start and/or finish nodes?", but I'm > afraid that's not enough to deduce the direction of complex

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Another attempt at summarizing the current situation: How should we included the direction? - Andy Townsend suggested "Explicit start and/or finish nodes?", but I'm afraid that's not enough to deduce the direction of complex hiking routes like this one:

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

I guess one problem has been fixed, but many still remain. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 19:04 schreef Paul Allen : > On Fri, 3 May 2019 at 17:39, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > Most editors are quite good at keeping route order these days (iD has >> looong ago been fixed). >> > > How

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:39 PM Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > Please note the statistics at the end of the post. I actually > did bother to observe the state of affairs and I found that a > majority of routes in fact _are_ already sorted. The numbers > are from before waymarkedtrails stopped sorting

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

If you want a routing app to navigate you along an OSM route (using gpx as intermediate), or a comparable dat use of OSM routes, the route must be ordered correctly or it simply won't work. If 65% of the routes is ordered, that means 35% is not and you can't rely on it for routing or profiling. I

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Fri, 3 May 2019 at 17:39, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: Most editors are quite good at keeping route order these days (iD has > looong ago been fixed). > How long ago is looong? Because 3 or 4 months ago I used iD to make a minor change to a sorted bus route and it scrambled the order. Yes, it was

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Hi, On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 01:24:49PM +0100, Andy Townsend wrote: > Seriously, hoever wrote that section of that wiki page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation:route=history > must have done so out of their _desire_ that relations are kept ordered in > OSM, not out of any

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Hm... it's a different subject... but it's much, much more than ordering. Edits to ways: splitting, lengthening, shortening, combining, adding and removing, can destroy many routes of different kinds, not only unordering them but making them unorderable because of duplicate ways, branch ways,

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

I prefer that those complete newbies get to mess with only 1 or 2 members of route relations, at the relatively small price of ordering. Peter Elderson skrev den 03.05.2019 16:12: > You prefer routes to stay unordered? Or that edits damage routes? > > Vr gr Peter Elderson > > Op vr 3 mei

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

You prefer routes to stay unordered? Or that edits damage routes? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 16:08 schreef : > > >>> For a non-roundtrip route consiting of two consecutive ways the route > >>> direction can be deduced from the order of the ways in the relation. > >> > >> That's

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Indeed. So at a given point, it's the oneway on the way that decides if you can go in, not the route relation. This means oneway tag can be used on the relation. Of course, for vehicles it would be wise to add only ways that are legally allowed in the same direction as the route is intended. Vr

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

For a non-roundtrip route consiting of two consecutive ways the route direction can be deduced from the order of the ways in the relation. That's assuming the ways are ordered at all. I've cleaned up hundreds of routes (most created by Potlatch users though) and my advice is: do not rely on

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

cycle.travel appears to try to follow cycle routes as much as possible. It respects road attributes Peter Elderson skrev den 03.05.2019 15:13: > This one seems to map routes to ways, and it knows the attributes of the ways. > Are you saying it ignores oneway tags on the individual ways? I

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Also, it does route to produce a track, but then to use it for navigation you transfer the gpx to your device, which then does the actual routing. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 15:13 schreef Peter Elderson : > This one seems to map routes to ways, and it knows the attributes of the

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

This one seems to map routes to ways, and it knows the attributes of the ways. Are you saying it ignores oneway tags on the individual ways? I wonder, if I feed it a route that goes over a oneway street and then reverse the direction, would it allow that in the navigation? Could be dangerous if it

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 03/05/2019 13:36, Peter Elderson wrote:  Routers look at the ways, not the routes. Immediately I can think of at least one major exception for that (cycle.travel).  I suspect that there are others too. Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

*Oneway or not?* *oneway=yes* is the simplest and already most used way to indicate that a route is oneway. It does not matter if that's legal, customary, by design or recommended. For ways, oneway is a legal thing; for routes it is not. Routers look at the ways, not the routes. No clash there. It

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 03/05/2019 13:05, Hufkratzer wrote: If some editors damage the order in the relations this is a bug that should be fixed anyway. As ever I'm sure that pull requests would be welcome. Seriously, hoever wrote that section of that wiki page

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 03.05.2019 12:56, o...@hjart.dk wrote: Hufkratzer skrev den 02.05.2019 12:11: On 30.04.2019 21:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:19 PM s8evq wrote: Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using the word oneway. Also, using the value

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 03/05/2019 12:21, s8evq wrote: But what's the alternative then? Explicit start and/or finish nodes? As previously mentioned, you simply can't rely on route ways being ordered. Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Fri, 03 May 2019 12:56:34 +0200, o...@hjart.dk wrote: > That's assuming the ways are ordered at all. I've cleaned up hundreds of > routes (most created by Potlatch users though) and my advice is: do not > rely on routes being ordered. But what's the alternative then? - Using CW CCW? How

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

+1 Id and Potlach edits damage routes. JOSM edits damage the routes as well, but JOSM allows the user to prevent/detect/analyse/repair the damage while editing. Still, it's a shaky system, can't rely on it for data use. Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 12:59 schreef : > > > Hufkratzer skrev den 02.05.2019

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Hufkratzer skrev den 02.05.2019 12:11: On 30.04.2019 21:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:19 PM s8evq wrote: Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using the word oneway. Also, using the value forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's possible

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Reading the replies, it seems the open question is whether we should solely rely on the order of ways in a relation, or on a key value to deduce/specify the direction in which the signposts are visible. I'm open for either solution. My question is: If you we use "forward|backward|both" as the

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 11:26, Hufkratzer wrote: > > Really? Which one does not? > i Dunno. But if I need to edit a relation I use JOSM (that and splitting woods so I can name the two sections differently) Is about all I use it for. This would be bug that needs to be fixed! > It's not a bug,

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 02.05.2019 12:20, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 11:13, Hufkratzer > wrote: For a non-roundtrip route consiting of two consecutive ways the route direction can be deduced from the order of the ways in the relation. Note that (last time I

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 11:13, Hufkratzer wrote: > > For a non-roundtrip route consiting of two consecutive ways the route > direction can be deduced from the order of the ways in the relation. > Note that (last time I tried) not all popular editors preserve the order of ways in relations. --

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 30.04.2019 21:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:19 PM s8evq wrote: Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using the word oneway. Also, using the value forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's possible to deduce this from the order of ways in

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 10:33, Tobias Wrede wrote: > The counter(clockwise) designation doesn't work well in cases of > touching or crossing ways (figure 8 shaped trails for example) A figure-eight trail could be mapped as two touching circular trails. But there are probably disadvantages to

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Am 30.04.2019 um 20:18 schrieb s8evq: - bidirectional=no - signed_oneway=yes - signed_direction=yes - designated_direction=forward|both|backward - signed=forward|backward|both|none Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using the word oneway. Also, using the value

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Am 30.04.2019 um 21:05 schrieb Kevin Kenny: On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:19 PM s8evq wrote: Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using the word oneway. Also, using the value forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's possible to deduce this from the order of

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

s8evq skrev den 30.04.2019 20:18: Helo everyone. I would like to pick up this month old discussion again and try to come to a conclussion. The situation so far: Problem: There are signposted hiking and biking routes, where the route itself goes only one way, because it's not way-marked in

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:19 PM s8evq wrote: > Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using the > word oneway. > Also, using the value forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's > possible to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation. The

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

30 Apr 2019, 20:18 by s8...@runbox.com: > - bidirectional=no > - signed_oneway=yes > - signed_direction=yes > - designated_direction=forward|both|backward > - signed=forward|backward|both|none > For me all work equally well, though with designated_direction=forward and similar I am not sure

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Helo everyone. I would like to pick up this month old discussion again and try to come to a conclussion. The situation so far: Problem: There are signposted hiking and biking routes, where the route itself goes only one way, because it's not way-marked in the opposite direction. How do we

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Le 19.03.19 à 10:05, marc marc a écrit : > Le 19.03.19 à 09:37, Markus a écrit : >> what about signed_direction=*? > > signed:forward|backward|both|none ? oups typo signed=forward|backward|both|none ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Le 19.03.19 à 09:37, Markus a écrit : > what about signed_direction=*? signed:forward|backward|both|none ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Thanks for the summary, s8evq! On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 08:55, s8evq wrote: > > - Not many are in favor of oneway=cw / oneway=ccw to indicate the actual > direction. This is currently in the wiki but is hardly in use (about 5 times > in total). I will go forward and remove this from the wiki.

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 08:55, s8evq wrote: > ... What about route=bicycle. The same problem exists there for a lot of > the network=lcn routes. But the wiki doesn't mention anything. I think the > same logic applies there, or not? > oneway=yes for bicycle|foot|other routes to indicate that the

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Thanks everybody for the input. I try to summarize the discussion so far as following. Please reply if I misunderstood some arguments. - Not many are in favor of oneway=cw / oneway=ccw to indicate the actual direction. This is currently in the wiki but is hardly in use (about 5 times in

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

It is indeed interesting to store that the signs work only for one direction, therefore oneway=yes/no is documented for hiking routes - in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking#Tags_of_the_relation since Jan. 2013 - in

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > I second Martin. No "oneway" key in this case. However you want to spell it. Given that the circular route I had in mind was subsequently signed in the opposite direction, I haven't got a use case at the moment. (The nearest thing I've got

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

I second Martin. No "oneway" key in this case. On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 21:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 14. Mar 2019, at 11:43, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > > > or oneway=signed if you think it clashes with the legal > > restriction tags). > > > or

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > The order of ways in the relation definitely determines the direction > to which oneway=* refers. It oneway=yes or oneway=signed (or whatever > we settle on) is present, the ways are traversed from the first > relation member to last -

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

sent from a phone > On 14. Mar 2019, at 11:43, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > or oneway=signed if you think it clashes with the legal > restriction tags). or bidirectional=no or signed_oneway=yes it shouldn’t be a value of the “oneway” key, there’s nothing preventing you from doing the route

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 6:45 AM Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > I was pointed to the discussion from the waymarkedtrails issue > tracker. I haven't followed the whole discussion. Here's just my > two cents as somebody how processes route data. I know that you and I have pretty strong disagreements on

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Hi, I was pointed to the discussion from the waymarkedtrails issue tracker. I haven't followed the whole discussion. Here's just my two cents as somebody how processes route data. On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:37:19PM +0100, s8evq wrote: > > If you want to indicate the preferred direction of a

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 14/03/19 02:37, s8evq wrote: If you want to indicate the preferred direction of a walking route that is basically loop-shaped, a concept that is different from the legally binding oneway, then some kind of clockwise / anticlockwise tagging should be used. Yes Volcker, this is what I'm after.

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:04 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > It's about loop-shaped walking/hiking/cycling routes, that should only by > > done in one direction, because of way-marking and signposts. (Most of the > > bicycle routes in this overpass query fall in that category > >

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 16:37, s8evq wrote: > > It's about loop-shaped walking/hiking/cycling routes, that should only by > done in one direction, because of way-marking and signposts. (Most of the > bicycle routes in this overpass query fall in that category >

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 12.03.2019 12:30, s8evq qrote: > [...] I see there is also the tag "direction=" with a lot more usage. On mini-roundabouts (as documented in the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction#Clockwise_and_anticlockwise), but sometimes even on route=foot, route=hiking and

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 16:27, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > And you're just envious because the voices won't talk to you! > I really hate it when people can figure out my inner motivations. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:47 AM Paul Allen wrote: > Something may appear > in the wiki for no reason other than the voices in somebody's head told that > person to put it > there. Moreover, because we as a community usually try to respect the work of other mappers (as much as we bicker on this

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:38, s8evq wrote: > > I have not seen anybody on this mailing list defend the usage of method > (2). Can I ask the question: why it is in the wiki? > Because somebody put it there. Oh, you wanted the ultimate cause not the proximate cause. The thing about the wiki is

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

> If you want to indicate the preferred direction of a walking route that is > basically loop-shaped, a concept that is different from the legally binding > oneway, then some kind of clockwise / anticlockwise tagging should be used. Yes Volcker, this is what I'm after. It's about loop-shaped

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 09:20, Markus wrote: > > If pedestrians are also only allowed to walk in one direction, it > seems you need to add oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no. right, this is a typical situation around here: oneway pedestrian roads where the oneway applies

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 22:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > But oneway=yes is definitely the way to go (sorry, that just slipped out!), > rather then clockwise. I thought that oneway=yes doesn't apply to pedestrians. [1] Thus, oneway=yes on a highway=path would only apply to cyclists and

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 00:31, s8evq wrote: > > most of these are roundtrip seems you are confusing “roundtrip” with “loop”, happened to me as well, until it was discussed here some time ago. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Mar 12, 2019, 10:53 PM by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at04:51, Philip Barnes <>> >> p...@trigpoint.me.uk >> >wrote: >> >>> Although the oneway

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:16:46 -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote: > In my notes, the plan is: > > (1) Put oneway=yes on the route relation, not on the ways. > (2) Add the ways to the route relation in their proper sequence. > (3) Give the ways the 'forward' or 'backward' role according to >

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:06 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Sorry, I am getting confused here (I am listening in as I frequently map > bìcycle routes). > The "oneway" tag would only make sense on a loop-shaped route. And only if > there are only ways and no nodes like signposts ecc, and if there

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

There seems to be some confusion from my original email as to why even have clockwise/counterclockwise on a hiking route _relation_. The reason is simple: When you have a roundtrip signposted hiking route, you can't always do the hike in both directions. The signs are sometimes positioned so

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Sorry, I am getting confused here (I am listening in as I frequently map bìcycle routes). The "oneway" tag would only make sense on a loop-shaped route. And only if there are only ways and no nodes like signposts ecc, and if there are no branches, and only if all members of the route were oneway

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 3/12/2019 6:09 PM, Warin wrote: On 13/03/19 08:59, Jmapb wrote: Is there any point in considering a tag for oneways that are not enforced but generally done nonetheless? oneway=traditional, oneway=suggested, something like that? (Again, I know I've seen these, but I can't think of an

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 13/03/19 08:59, Jmapb wrote: On 3/12/2019 5:53 PM, Warin wrote: On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension bridge!, not a normal track, but it is posted as entrance only at this end &

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 3/12/2019 5:53 PM, Warin wrote: On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension bridge!, not a normal track, but it is posted as entrance only at this end & exit only at the other. The

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:51, Philip Barnes > wrote: Although the oneway tag implies a legal restriction, and I doubt it is illegal to walk a hiking route in the 'wrong' direction. I do know of one that is

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:51, Philip Barnes wrote: > > Although the oneway tag implies a legal restriction, and I doubt it is > illegal to walk a hiking route in the 'wrong' direction. > I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 10:50 -0700, Johnparis wrote: > direction=clockwise/anticlockwise makes sense for a node (like a > miniroundabout), not for a way > > on a way, the common usage is "oneway=yes" and make sure the way > (which is by nature directional) is pointing the right direction. > > It

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

direction=clockwise/anticlockwise makes sense for a node (like a miniroundabout), not for a way on a way, the common usage is "oneway=yes" and make sure the way (which is by nature directional) is pointing the right direction. It doesn't make much sense for a hiking route to use "clockwise" (why

[Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Hello everyone, I have a question concerning the correct way to add the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle relations. I saw in the route=hiking wiki page that the usage of oneway=cw and oneway=ccw has been added in 2017, with the word "proposal: " in front.