Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Motorway link no default oneway

[Joachim]

I can understand your concern, but please have a look at the reactions when
the proposal still included "don't route over motorway_link without
oneway". The reactions said there is no chance in enforcing this.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-September/026453.html

2015-10-30 0:51 GMT+01:00 André Pirard :

> On 2015-10-29 20:45, Joachim wrote :
>
It says:
>
> Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link.
>
> For routing purposes no recommendation for ways with *undefined oneway*
> is made. A provider should decide on it's own considering the documentation
> history and current data.
>
> It is totally unacceptable to let a GPS provider "decide on its (not it's)
> own" (what?) based on fuzzy and vague "documentation history and current
> data".  OSM is the place that *must* contain the data to be used and,
> should the oneway status be undetermined, routing must obviously be
> *requested* to not let the cars go through that place.
> If that undetermined status existed, contributors should not be
> recommended but requested explicit tagging.
> And hence, quality assurance providers should be *requested* to check
> motorway_link statuses and to warn the culprit and not an innocent as
> Osmose does, and even this Tagging list in such grave security cases.
>
> Please let us not make OSM responsible for car crashes.
>
> Cheers
>
> André.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Motorway link no default oneway

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 29/10/2015, Joachim  wrote:
> I invite you to vote on the proposal "Motorway link no default
> oneway". The following is proposed:
>
> Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link.

No need for a proposal and a vote to do that. Just go ahead and recommend it.

> Define that highway=motorway_link without tagged oneway=* has no
> implied oneway=yes

That's the case already, no change here. Only motorways are rather
universally expected to be oneway.

> and also the standard default of oneway=no does not
> apply. The oneway=* status of such a way would be undefined.

That's useless. You're not writing a spec to generate code in a
language that has a concept of nulls, you're writing some
documentation that might, maybe, be read by consumers and
implementors. And if all you can tell them is "it's your call" you
might as well not waste their time and not tell them anything.

> * For rendering purposes ways with undefined oneway should be
> displayed like the default, i.e. without oneway arrows.
> * For routing purposes no recommendation for ways with undefined
> oneway is made. A provider should decide on it's own considering the
> documentation history and current data.

That contradicts the "no implied oneway=yes" statement and is
inconsistent with the recomendation for renderers. Just leave the
status quo (most routers assume oneway=no) in peace please. I've given
examples before explaining why a mistaken oneway=yes assumption is
worse than a mistaken oneway=no assumption where routing is concerned.

> * In map editors undefined oneway should be displayed as tagging
> error. Corresponding tickets will be opened for JOSM/iD/Potlatch.

Again, no need for a proposal to do that. Just go ahead and open
feature requests if they don't exist already.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Motorway link no default oneway

[André Pirard]

On 2015-10-29 20:45, Joachim wrote :
> I invite you to vote on the proposal "Motorway link no default
> oneway". The following is proposed:
>
> Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link.
>
> Define that highway=motorway_link without tagged oneway=* has no
> implied oneway=yes and also the standard default of oneway=no does not
> apply. The oneway=* status of such a way would be undefined.
>
> * For rendering purposes ways with undefined oneway should be
> displayed like the default, i.e. without oneway arrows.
> * For routing purposes no recommendation for ways with undefined
> oneway is made. A provider should decide on it's own considering the
> documentation history and current data.
> * In map editors undefined oneway should be displayed as tagging
> error. Corresponding tickets will be opened for JOSM/iD/Potlatch.
>
>
> Link: 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_no_default_oneway#Voting
It says:
> Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link.
> For routing purposes no recommendation for ways with /undefined
> oneway/ is made. A provider should decide on it's own considering the
> documentation history and current data.
It is totally unacceptable to let a GPS provider "decide on its (not
it's) own" (what?) based on fuzzy and vague "documentation history and
current data".  OSM is the place that *must* contain the data to be used
and, should the oneway status be undetermined, routing must obviously be
*requested* to not let the cars go through that place.
If that undetermined status existed, contributors should not be
recommended but requested explicit tagging.
And hence, quality assurance providers should be *requested* to check
motorway_link statuses and to warn the culprit and not an innocent as
Osmose does, and even this Tagging list in such grave security cases.

Please let us not make OSM responsible for car crashes.

Cheers

André.












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