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

[Peter Elderson]

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 over a legal restriction.

I'm perfectly fine with oneway=yes, and determining the direction from the
order of ways in the relation.
Remains the problem that the order in the relations is unreliable, many are
unsortable, so in many cases the direction cannot be determined.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 8 mei 2019 om 12:04 schreef s8evq :

> 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
> proposal: It might be useful to indicate if the route is marked in the
> clockwise or counterclockwise direction, i.e. oneway=cw or oneway=ccw.
>
> Changing to:
> signed_direction=yes (optional) Use signed_direction=yes to indicate that
> the route is to be walked in only one direction, according to the signposts
> on the ground. The ways within the relation should be ordered, as they are
> used to determine the direction of the signposts. It's prefered to not use
> oneway=yes anymore, as it could cause confusion with oneway=* as a legal
> restriction. (as discussed on the tagging mailing list (insert link))
>
> This changes could also be applied on route=foot and route=bicycle
>
> Comments?
>
>
> On Sun, 5 May 2019 12:44:10 +0100, ael via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> > 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 hiking
> routes like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9535700
> > >
> > > - Using the sorted order of the relation? A lot of criticism on this
> method. It's fragile and could easily break when newbies edit. On the other
> hand, it's the only solution we have. Sarah remarked: "An unsorted route is
> not wrong, it's only less precise. Maps can show it without issues
> including waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features."
> >
> > Just a thought, but with minimal background knowledge:-
> >
> > Why not add a boolean tag, something like "sorted=yes" which editors
> > will always turn off unless the editor (or user) can verify that the
> > sorting has been maintained? Provided that there is a well defined order
> > relation, that should be something that editor could automate?
> >
> > ael
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[s8evq]

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
proposal: It might be useful to indicate if the route is marked in the 
clockwise or counterclockwise direction, i.e. oneway=cw or oneway=ccw. 

Changing to:
signed_direction=yes (optional) Use signed_direction=yes to indicate that the 
route is to be walked in only one direction, according to the signposts on the 
ground. The ways within the relation should be ordered, as they are used to 
determine the direction of the signposts. It's prefered to not use oneway=yes 
anymore, as it could cause confusion with oneway=* as a legal restriction. (as 
discussed on the tagging mailing list (insert link))

This changes could also be applied on route=foot and route=bicycle

Comments?


On Sun, 5 May 2019 12:44:10 +0100, ael via Tagging  
wrote:

> 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 hiking routes 
> > like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9535700
> > 
> > - Using the sorted order of the relation? A lot of criticism on this 
> > method. It's fragile and could easily break when newbies edit. On the other 
> > hand, it's the only solution we have. Sarah remarked: "An unsorted route is 
> > not wrong, it's only less precise. Maps can show it without issues 
> > including waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features."
> 
> Just a thought, but with minimal background knowledge:-
> 
> Why not add a boolean tag, something like "sorted=yes" which editors
> will always turn off unless the editor (or user) can verify that the
> sorting has been maintained? Provided that there is a well defined order
> relation, that should be something that editor could automate?
> 
> ael
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[ael via Tagging]

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 hiking routes 
> like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9535700
> 
> - Using the sorted order of the relation? A lot of criticism on this method. 
> It's fragile and could easily break when newbies edit. On the other hand, 
> it's the only solution we have. Sarah remarked: "An unsorted route is not 
> wrong, it's only less precise. Maps can show it without issues including 
> waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features."

Just a thought, but with minimal background knowledge:-

Why not add a boolean tag, something like "sorted=yes" which editors
will always turn off unless the editor (or user) can verify that the
sorting has been maintained? Provided that there is a well defined order
relation, that should be something that editor could automate?

ael


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

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

[s8evq]

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: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9535700

- Using the sorted order of the relation? A lot of criticism on this method. 
It's fragile and could easily break when newbies edit. On the other hand, it's 
the only solution we have. Sarah remarked: "An unsorted route is not wrong, 
it's only less precise. Maps can show it without issues including 
waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features."


I guess the question is (as Peter Elderson also stated): would you rather have 
unsorted route relations and miss out on this additional information, or order 
the route relation and risk the danger they might get damaged later?



On Fri, 3 May 2019 19:10:18 +0200, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> 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
> would say you need at least 95% correct.
> 
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> 
> 
> Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 18:39 schreef Sarah Hoffmann :
> 
> > 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 observation that they actually _are_ ordered.
> >
> > I haven't edited the wiki page but I'm likely responsible that it
> > appeared because of this post:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lonvia/diary/42262
> >
> > 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 routes, i.e.
> > they are not distored by the fact that people wanted to see
> > a clean elevation profile on the site.
> >
> > > In OSM you need to deal with the data as it is, not as you'd like it to
> > be -
> > > the nature of the project, where anyone can contribute, and they may not
> > be
> > > even aware of concepts that you care deeply about makes it fundamentally
> > the
> > > worst place to be an architecture astronaut (as per
> > https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architecture-astronauts-scare-you/
> > > etc.).
> >
> > This judgement is a bit unfair unless you have actually tried to
> > sort routes. It's easy for the 2/3 or so routes that are strictly
> > linear. For everything else, it's hard. It's essentially an optimisation
> > problem. And no matter what you do, part of your algorithm involves
> > guessing what the mapper might have wanted. That is the point where
> > I argue that the mapping is flawed and might miss some information
> > that the mapper actual has at their disposal.
> >
> > Here is an example of a route that is really hard to sort
> > automaticaly but is perfectly usable when used in the order it
> > appears in the relation:
> > https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=1115137
> >
> > > That's not to say that we can't try and make contributions better, but
> > the
> > > way to do that is to modify the tools that people use to contribute to
> > OSM
> > > not to write wiki pages that no-one reads before they start editing.
> >
> > As everything in OSM, you don't need to read that wiki page and you
> > have the freedom to sort your routes or not. If you don't want to
> > bother, that's perfectly fine. An unsorted route is not wrong, it's
> > only less precise. Maps can show it without issues including
> > waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features.
> >
> > One more point:
> > Most editors are quite good at keeping route order these days (iD has
> > looong ago been fixed). But even when they get it wrong (mostly due to
> > complicated way splits or reversals) having routes sorted actually
> > means that the damage is less severe because when you stitch the
> > remaining parts together, the result is still very usable.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[Peter Elderson]

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 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 a complicated
> route that does loop-
> the-loops and traverses some ways more than once, but that shouldn't
> matter.  And even if
> it does matter, the scrambling affected straightforward parts of the route
> that were traversed
> just once.  In any case, an editor shouldn't attempt to sort a route
> unless the user explicitly
> requests it.
>
> Maybe looong ago is less than 4 months ago...
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[Kevin Kenny]

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 routes, i.e.
> they are not distored by the fact that people wanted to see
> a clean elevation profile on the site.

Incidentally, thanks for whatever you did recently.  I've been careful
to keep routes sorted for all the reasons you've mentioned in the
past. It's now nice to see that
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=919642 works, despite the
fact that gaps remain in the mapping. (Maybe this summer I can make it
over to the Schoharie Valley and close the major ones.) The elevation
profile for the Schoharie section looks great, gaps and all, and WMT
even does a decent job of distance estimation in the gaps.

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

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

[Peter Elderson]

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
would say you need at least 95% correct.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 18:39 schreef Sarah Hoffmann :

> 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 observation that they actually _are_ ordered.
>
> I haven't edited the wiki page but I'm likely responsible that it
> appeared because of this post:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lonvia/diary/42262
>
> 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 routes, i.e.
> they are not distored by the fact that people wanted to see
> a clean elevation profile on the site.
>
> > In OSM you need to deal with the data as it is, not as you'd like it to
> be -
> > the nature of the project, where anyone can contribute, and they may not
> be
> > even aware of concepts that you care deeply about makes it fundamentally
> the
> > worst place to be an architecture astronaut (as per
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architecture-astronauts-scare-you/
> > etc.).
>
> This judgement is a bit unfair unless you have actually tried to
> sort routes. It's easy for the 2/3 or so routes that are strictly
> linear. For everything else, it's hard. It's essentially an optimisation
> problem. And no matter what you do, part of your algorithm involves
> guessing what the mapper might have wanted. That is the point where
> I argue that the mapping is flawed and might miss some information
> that the mapper actual has at their disposal.
>
> Here is an example of a route that is really hard to sort
> automaticaly but is perfectly usable when used in the order it
> appears in the relation:
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=1115137
>
> > That's not to say that we can't try and make contributions better, but
> the
> > way to do that is to modify the tools that people use to contribute to
> OSM
> > not to write wiki pages that no-one reads before they start editing.
>
> As everything in OSM, you don't need to read that wiki page and you
> have the freedom to sort your routes or not. If you don't want to
> bother, that's perfectly fine. An unsorted route is not wrong, it's
> only less precise. Maps can show it without issues including
> waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features.
>
> One more point:
> Most editors are quite good at keeping route order these days (iD has
> looong ago been fixed). But even when they get it wrong (mostly due to
> complicated way splits or reversals) having routes sorted actually
> means that the damage is less severe because when you stitch the
> remaining parts together, the result is still very usable.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Sarah
>
>
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[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 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 a complicated
route that does loop-
the-loops and traverses some ways more than once, but that shouldn't
matter.  And even if
it does matter, the scrambling affected straightforward parts of the route
that were traversed
just once.  In any case, an editor shouldn't attempt to sort a route unless
the user explicitly
requests it.

Maybe looong ago is less than 4 months ago...

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

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

[Sarah Hoffmann]

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 observation that they actually _are_ ordered.

I haven't edited the wiki page but I'm likely responsible that it
appeared because of this post:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lonvia/diary/42262

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 routes, i.e.
they are not distored by the fact that people wanted to see
a clean elevation profile on the site.

> In OSM you need to deal with the data as it is, not as you'd like it to be -
> the nature of the project, where anyone can contribute, and they may not be
> even aware of concepts that you care deeply about makes it fundamentally the
> worst place to be an architecture astronaut (as per 
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architecture-astronauts-scare-you/
> etc.).

This judgement is a bit unfair unless you have actually tried to
sort routes. It's easy for the 2/3 or so routes that are strictly
linear. For everything else, it's hard. It's essentially an optimisation
problem. And no matter what you do, part of your algorithm involves
guessing what the mapper might have wanted. That is the point where
I argue that the mapping is flawed and might miss some information
that the mapper actual has at their disposal.

Here is an example of a route that is really hard to sort
automaticaly but is perfectly usable when used in the order it
appears in the relation:
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=1115137

> That's not to say that we can't try and make contributions better, but the
> way to do that is to modify the tools that people use to contribute to OSM
> not to write wiki pages that no-one reads before they start editing.

As everything in OSM, you don't need to read that wiki page and you
have the freedom to sort your routes or not. If you don't want to
bother, that's perfectly fine. An unsorted route is not wrong, it's
only less precise. Maps can show it without issues including
waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features.

One more point:
Most editors are quite good at keeping route order these days (iD has
looong ago been fixed). But even when they get it wrong (mostly due to
complicated way splits or reversals) having routes sorted actually
means that the damage is less severe because when you stitch the
remaining parts together, the result is still very usable.

Kind regards

Sarah


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

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

[Peter Elderson]

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,
interruptions, faulty roundabouts, breaking roles and turn restrictions.
I'd rather see newbies making mistakes and make them correct those mistakes
themselves, than keeping them away, ignorant and a permanent newby.

But in the end, we should think of a way to prevent this from happening
altogether. If an edit breaks something important, it shouldn't be
accepted, or it should be automatically repaired.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 16:31 schreef :

> 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 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 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.
>> >
>> > In OSM a relation is by definition an ordered list, see
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation :
>> > "A relation is a group of elements. To be more exact it is one of the
>> > core data elements that consists of one or more tags and also an
>> > ordered list of one or more nodes, ways and/or relations as members
>> > ..."
>> >
>> > Also the elevation profiles for the routes (e.g. in
>> > waymarkedtrails.org) only work if the routes are ordered and they
>> > usually look ok, see also
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Order_matters .
>> >
>> > If some editors damage the order in the relations this is a bug that
>> > should be fixed anyway.
>>
>> In order to sort the members of a relation in JOSM, you need to download
>> all of them. The majority of edits to relations involve downloading only
>> 2-3 members. If only 1 member is added or removed, that's how they
>> become unordered.
>> Personally I'd prefer it stays like that, because I've seen complete
>> newbies make some really weird edits to cycleroutes, because they
>> obviously didn't understand what it was.
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[osm]

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 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 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.
>>> 
>>> In OSM a relation is by definition an ordered list, see
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation :
>>> "A relation is a group of elements. To be more exact it is one of the
>>> core data elements that consists of one or more tags and also an
>>> ordered list of one or more nodes, ways and/or relations as members
>>> ..."
>>> 
>>> Also the elevation profiles for the routes (e.g. in
>>> waymarkedtrails.org [1]) only work if the routes are ordered and they
>>> usually look ok, see also
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Order_matters .
>>> 
>>> If some editors damage the order in the relations this is a bug that
>>> should be fixed anyway.
>> 
>> In order to sort the members of a relation in JOSM, you need to download 
>> all of them. The majority of edits to relations involve downloading only 
>> 2-3 members. If only 1 member is added or removed, that's how they 
>> become unordered.
>> Personally I'd prefer it stays like that, because I've seen complete 
>> newbies make some really weird edits to cycleroutes, because they 
>> obviously didn't understand what it was.
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

Links:
--
[1] http://waymarkedtrails.org___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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 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.
> >
> > In OSM a relation is by definition an ordered list, see
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation :
> > "A relation is a group of elements. To be more exact it is one of the
> > core data elements that consists of one or more tags and also an
> > ordered list of one or more nodes, ways and/or relations as members
> > ..."
> >
> > Also the elevation profiles for the routes (e.g. in
> > waymarkedtrails.org) only work if the routes are ordered and they
> > usually look ok, see also
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Order_matters .
> >
> > If some editors damage the order in the relations this is a bug that
> > should be fixed anyway.
>
> In order to sort the members of a relation in JOSM, you need to download
> all of them. The majority of edits to relations involve downloading only
> 2-3 members. If only 1 member is added or removed, that's how they
> become unordered.
> Personally I'd prefer it stays like that, because I've seen complete
> newbies make some really weird edits to cycleroutes, because they
> obviously didn't understand what it was.
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[Peter Elderson]

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 gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 15:55 schreef :

> 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 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
> did...
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
> Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 14:55 schreef Andy Townsend :
>
>> 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 list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[osm]

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 routes being ordered.


In OSM a relation is by definition an ordered list, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation :
"A relation is a group of elements. To be more exact it is one of the
core data elements that consists of one or more tags and also an
ordered list of one or more nodes, ways and/or relations as members
..."

Also the elevation profiles for the routes (e.g. in
waymarkedtrails.org) only work if the routes are ordered and they
usually look ok, see also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Order_matters .

If some editors damage the order in the relations this is a bug that
should be fixed anyway.


In order to sort the members of a relation in JOSM, you need to download 
all of them. The majority of edits to relations involve downloading only 
2-3 members. If only 1 member is added or removed, that's how they 
become unordered.
Personally I'd prefer it stays like that, because I've seen complete 
newbies make some really weird edits to cycleroutes, because they 
obviously didn't understand what it was.


___
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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[osm]

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 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 
> did...
> 
> Vr gr Peter Elderson 
> 
> Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 14:55 schreef Andy Townsend : 
> 
>> 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 [1]).  I suspect that there are others too.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

Links:
--
[1] http://cycle.travel___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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
> 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
> did...
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 14:55 schreef Andy Townsend :
>
>> 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 list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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
did...

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 14:55 schreef Andy Townsend :

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

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

[Andy Townsend]

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

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

[Peter Elderson]

*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 also does not
matter that it is physically possible to walk a route the other way.
Mappers in the wild seem to agree on this point.
You record what is there, and that is a route signed in one direction. In
fact the route only exists because of the waymarks; the line over the ways
is imaginary, not physical.

*Which direction?*
The direction cannot reliably be calculated from the relation, even when
the whole route is one relation, let alone for complex routes which are
hierarchies or collections of route relations.
A way with start role could help on simple linear routes, if sorting works
out. If not, you can't tell. On simple closed_loop routes, you would need
an end role as well, and the sorting requirement is still there.
If routes are composed of sub-relations each possibly having start and or
end roles, that would be a problem: which ones are to be used to determine
direction?

I think there is no other way then to assume that the route is ordered or
can be sorted with a standard sorting routine. If not, too bad, direction
cannot be determined. Flip a coin.

If it is or can be sorted, what always works to establish the direction, is
to mark two (any two) consecutive ways in the route relation as first and
second.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 13:44 schreef Andy Townsend :

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

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

[Andy Townsend]

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 
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 observation that they actually _are_ ordered.


In OSM you need to deal with the data as it is, not as you'd like it to 
be - the nature of the project, where anyone can contribute, and they 
may not be even aware of concepts that you care deeply about makes it 
fundamentally the worst place to be an architecture astronaut (as per 
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architecture-astronauts-scare-you/ 
etc.).


That's not to say that we can't try and make contributions better, but 
the way to do that is to modify the tools that people use to contribute 
to OSM not to write wiki pages that no-one reads before they start editing.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

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

[Hufkratzer]

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 forward|backward might not be necessary, as 
it's possible to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation.

The forward/backward direction cannot be deduced from the order of the
ways if the relation contains fewer than three ways.


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 routes being ordered.


In OSM a relation is by definition an ordered list, see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation :
"A relation is a group of elements. To be more exact it is one of the 
core data elements that consists of one or more tags and also an ordered 
list of one or more nodes, ways and/or relations as members ..."


Also the elevation profiles for the routes (e.g. in waymarkedtrails.org) 
only work if the routes are ordered and they usually look ok, see also 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Order_matters .


If some editors damage the order in the relations this is a bug that 
should be fixed anyway.


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

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

[Andy Townsend]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[s8evq]

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 would you indicate the direction of this route 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9535700), not using the order of the 
individual ways? 

- Using designated_direction=forward|backward|both.   But forward relative to 
what?

I understand that it's dangerous to rely on the order of ways in a relation. 
But difficulty of tagging/editing is only a minor argument, as long as there's 
no better alternative way of tagging.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

+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 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 to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation.
> >> The forward/backward direction cannot be deduced from the order of the
> >> ways if the relation contains fewer than three ways.
> >
> > 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 routes being ordered.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[osm]

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 to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation.

The forward/backward direction cannot be deduced from the order of the
ways if the relation contains fewer than three ways.


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 routes being ordered.



___
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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[s8evq]

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 value in for 
example designated_direction=*", to what does forward relate? How do you know 
what forward is?

On Thu, 2 May 2019 11:35:38 +0200, Tobias Wrede  wrote:

> 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 forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's 
> > possible to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation.
> >
> signed_direction=yes is not intuitive in my opinion. Mappers might apply 
> it ("yes, there is a signed direction") but might forget to put the 
> members in the right order. Having a forward|backward|both|none in there 
> might make it more obvious to take care to apply the tag correctly.
> 
> Tobias
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[Paul Allen]

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, it's a feature.  Well, it's an acknowledged problem.  Or
was.  I haven't tried it in a
while, because unscrambling a large relation is not my iDea of fun.

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

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

[Hufkratzer]

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 tried) not all popular editors preserve the 
order of ways in relations.


--
Paul


Really? Which one does not? This would be bug that needs to be fixed!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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.

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

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

[Hufkratzer]

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 the relation.

The forward/backward direction cannot be deduced from the order of the
ways if the relation contains fewer than three ways.


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.



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

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

[Paul Allen]

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 doing it that way.

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

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

[Tobias Wrede]

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 forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's possible 
to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation.

signed_direction=yes is not intuitive in my opinion. Mappers might apply 
it ("yes, there is a signed direction") but might forget to put the 
members in the right order. Having a forward|backward|both|none in there 
might make it more obvious to take care to apply the tag correctly.


Tobias


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

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

[Tobias Wrede]

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 ways in the relation.

The forward/backward direction cannot be deduced from the order of the
ways if the relation contains fewer than three ways.



Do you suggest to stick with (counter)clockwise then?

Is there really a use case? How many circular routes are made up of only 
one or two ways? I suppose one could add the information to the ways 
then in that special case.


The counter(clockwise) designation doesn't work well in cases of 
touching or crossing ways (figure 8 shaped trails for example) or when 
alternative routes are included in the relation.


Tobias


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

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

[osm]

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 the
opposite direction. How do we add that information in OSM?

Current solution: oneway=yes. Not preferred by many on this list, as
oneway should indicate a legal restriction.

New solution: Some of you suggested alternative new tags, but we
didn't come to a conclusion on this yet. What I have gathered from the
various answers:

- 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 forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's
possible to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation.


This is a false assumption. You should never rely on ways in route 
relations to even be ordered at all. OSM route relations are often 
edited by less experienced or non-technical contributors with no idea 
about ordering at all and there are also lots of cases where you can't 
even order a route in a meaningfull way.


Any other views? Anybody against replacing oneway=yes with
signed_direction=yes in the wiki pages of route=foot and route=hiking?


I happen to know the guy who came up with the oneway=cw/ccw tagging 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dhiking=1453921) 
and remember briefly discussing it with him (he mapped a ton of 
walking/hiking routes in the areas around the danish/german border).


I don't really have much of a problem with oneway=* on route relations 
(since the meaning is fairly obvious to me), but I'm not against 
replacing it (note that the inventors primary language isn't english) , 
but have to state that the cw/ccw values (I suggested 
clockwise/anticlockwise) are necessary, since there's really no other 
way to indicate which direction a circular route is better followed.


Do also note that clockwise/anticlockwise values can be usefull for 
human consumers, even though they may not be for data consumers.



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

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

[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 ways in the relation.

The forward/backward direction cannot be deduced from the order of the
ways if the relation contains fewer than three ways.

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 whatever direction in relation would become important.

> 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.
>
> Any other views? Anybody against replacing oneway=yes with 
> signed_direction=yes in the wiki pages of route=foot and route=hiking?
>
I would mention both, with link to the thread and explanation that oneway=yes 
is discouraged.
This way that tag use is still documented. Though it may be OK to put it into 
 note
or similar to avoid clutter.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[s8evq]

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 add that information in OSM?

Current solution: oneway=yes. Not preferred by many on this list, as oneway 
should indicate a legal restriction.

New solution: Some of you suggested alternative new tags, but we didn't come to 
a conclusion on this yet. What I have gathered from the various answers:

- 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 forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's possible 
to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation.

Any other views? Anybody against replacing oneway=yes with signed_direction=yes 
in the wiki pages of route=foot and route=hiking?


On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:37:35 +, marc marc  wrote:

> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

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

[marc marc]

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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[marc marc]

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

[Markus]

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. OK?

+1

> - One question that remains open is how to tag. On the one hand oneway=yes is 
> currently in use with 1.2K relations. On the other had, the argument can be 
> made that oneway=yes should be reserved to legal prescriptions and not just 
> recommendations. Alternatives that came forward are: bidirectional=no, 
> signed_oneway=yes, oneway=signposted, oneway=recommended, oneway=signed

There's also designated_direction=forward|both|backward with 13,306
uses, all in combination with railway=*, but why not reusing it for
hiking/walking/cycling routes? Or, if designated sounds too official,
what about signed_direction=*? In any case i would avoid a key
containing the word oneway.

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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 signposting
is only easily visible in one direction is stretching the definition of
"oneway", if not wrong.
oneway is an access tag (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Oneway
where it says "The *oneway* tag is used to indicate the access restriction
on highways  and other linear
features as appropriate.") and access tags are about legal access (see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access where it says " *Access
values* are used to describe the *legal* access...")
Riding a bicycle route against the flow, risking not seeing the signs is
not illegal, it's just less convenient unless you know the route anyway.
I had a quick look at the use of "network=lcn" AND "oneway=yes" on
relations and found it's used a bit in Belgium, some ten cases in NL,
Germany, Austria, one in France, none in Italy, UK, USA
Overall it seems limited in use and could easily be corrected by hand when
a better solution has been agreed.

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

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

[s8evq]

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 
total). I will go forward and remove this from the wiki. OK?

-  Once established is that a route should only be done in one direction with 
an appropriate tag, it's up to the data consumer to guess what direction 
(counterclockwise or clockwise) that actually is. This can be done based on the 
order of the members in the relations.

- The above can contain ambiguity when a relation contains less then three 
members. Possible solution is to split ways to avoid ambiguity, forbid one-way 
routes of fewer than three members, or disambiguate with 'forward' or 
'backward' roles on the ways.

- One question that remains open is how to tag. On the one hand oneway=yes is 
currently in use with 1.2K relations. On the other had, the argument can be 
made that oneway=yes should be reserved to legal prescriptions and not just 
recommendations. Alternatives that came forward are: bidirectional=no, 
signed_oneway=yes, oneway=signposted, oneway=recommended, oneway=signed


And one more thing I noticed: oneway=yes is currently used for route=hiking and 
route=walking. 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?

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:09:22 +0100, Hufkratzer  wrote:

>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 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=hiking#Tags_of_the_relation 
> since 
> Mar. 2016
> and we already have 1.2k relations with oneway=yes
> and zero with oneway=signed, bidirectional=no or signed_oneway=yes.
> 
> On 14.03.2019 21:31, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>  > 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 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 in the counterdirection, especially 
> if you are with a map from OpenStreetMap ;-)
>  >
>  > Yes, it could be interesting to store that the signs work only 
> for one direction, but this is very different from a oneway.
>  >
>  >
>  > Cheers, Martin
> 
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[Hufkratzer]

  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 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=hiking#Tags_of_the_relation since 
Mar. 2016

and we already have 1.2k relations with oneway=yes
and zero with oneway=signed, bidirectional=no or signed_oneway=yes.

On 14.03.2019 21:31, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> 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 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 in the counterdirection, especially 
if you are with a map from OpenStreetMap ;-)

>
> Yes, it could be interesting to store that the signs work only 
for one direction, but this is very different from a oneway.

>
>
> Cheers, Martin

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 is foot trails
that run both ways over what are one-way snowmobile trails in the
winter, but I know how to represent those.)

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

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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 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 in the counterdirection, especially if you are
> with a map from OpenStreetMap ;-)
>
> Yes, it could be interesting to store that the signs work only for one
> direction, but this is very different from a oneway.
>
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[Kevin Kenny]

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 - irrespective of the direction of the way.

And I just realized where this rule needs *something* to resolve a
possible ambiguity:

We already have concluded that the direction a route traverses a way
needs to be independent of the direction of the way. (I have examples
where two routes share one way in the same direction, and elsewhere
share a different way in opposite directions, and that's not
achievable otherwise.)

If a route is circular, and the relation has fewer than three ways,
there's then an ambiguity.  For a single way in the relation, the
direction of travel could be either with or against the way.  For a
relation with two ways, the direction of travel on the first way could
be either with or against the way, and in either case, the other way
will have an endpoint that joins and the route will close.

The first case is just a closed way, and the route provides no
indication of the direction of travel.

The second case is that there are ways x and y joining nodes A and B.
The direction of the ways in a route relation, we've already
established, needs to be ignored. So the actual route will depend on
the choice of which end of 'x' is chosen as the start.  It could be B
-> x-in-reverse -> A -> y -> B, or A -> x -> B -> y-in-reverse -> A.
Both routings visit way x before way y, so the order of the ways in
the relation doesn't determine the route.

For three or more ways, there's no ambiguity, since only one endpoint
of the first way will join to the second, determining the direction of
travel on both.

The simplest solution is to require that the ways be split if
necessary to avoid ambiguity - forbid one-way routes of fewer than
three members. An alternative is what I mentioned previously,
disambiguate with 'forward' or 'backward' roles on the ways.  I can
live with either.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 in the counterdirection, especially if you are with a map 
from OpenStreetMap ;-)

Yes, it could be interesting to store that the signs work only for one 
direction, but this is very different from a oneway. 


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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 the
processing of route data (mostly owing, I think, to the ridiculously
high number of route concurrences in the US), but on this specific
issue, I think we're in 'violent agreement'.

oneway=* definitely goes on the relation, not on the member ways, for
the case where a route runs only one way by convention, but the
individual ways can be followed in either direction, physically and
legally.

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 - irrespective of the direction of the way.

I'm aware of what 'forward' and 'backward' are intended to mean - it's
there to handle cases like a pair of one-way streets that belong to
the same numbered route, or the two ways of a dual carriageway. When I
suggested borrowing this tagging for the one-way route, I thought it
was Mostly Harmless to do so, because in this case, the way only
exists in one direction. Navigation engines honor the 'forward' and
'backward' values (to avoid sending you on the wrong direction of a
route - some routes separate into 'forward' and 'backward' on two-way
streets, to avoid illegal turns or something), and so I thought that
the explicit direction would be a little extra level of safety against
misrouting. It doesn't exactly misinform, because as I said, the route
doesn't exist in the opposite direction.

I concede that nearly everything can work without the explicit
'forward' and 'backward' indicating whether the route runs with or
against the direction of the way.

I think we both agree that oneway=cw and oneway=ccw are difficult for
both navigation and rendering, and hope we can lay those to rest.

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

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

[Sarah Hoffmann]

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 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 
> 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 https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GWB, quite a 
> lot!)
> I'm not talking about individual ways that are oneway restricted for 
> pedestrians.
> 
> 
> How to properly indicate the preferred direction of this kind of relation? 
> 
> method (1) With proper forward / backward roles on the members of the 
> relation? (as stated in the route=bicycle wiki page 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle and mentioned by 
> Volcker Schmidt and Kevin Kenny)

That's for the case where a route forks and follows different
ways for forwards and backward directions of the route. I'd still
expect both directions to be present.

> method (2) By using the tag oneway=yes, (as stated on the route=hiking and 
> route=foot wiki page  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot but it causing a lot of 
> confusion here)
> 
> 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?

Then let me defend the method. I like the simple oneway=yes
(or oneway=signed if you think it clashes with the legal
 restriction tags). It is the least hassle for a mapper.
In addition to using the tag  you need to make sure that
your members are correctly ordered in the direction where the
route is signed. Then it is also really easy to determine which
the recommended direction is, if you look at the entire
relation.

NB: There is a bit of a conflict though here between those who
just want to paint the routes on a map and those who want to
process entire routes. For the map creators the forward/backward
solution is much nicer because the role is relative to the way.
It makes it easier to simply add a couple of arrows to indicate
direction. The 'oneway=yes' is a pain because you first need to
determine if the way is forwards or backwards in the relation.
When assembling routes from the relation exactly the opposite
holds. Forward/backwards doesn't give any information about the
direction of the route the way belongs to.

So disclaimer here: I like oneway=yes because waymarkedtrails
fully processes relations.

oneway=cw/ccw might be useful for mappers to verify that the route
is correct but rather difficult for processing.

Sarah


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

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

[Warin]

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. 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 https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GWB, quite a 
lot!)
I'm not talking about individual ways that are oneway restricted for 
pedestrians.


How to properly indicate the preferred direction of this kind of relation?

method (1) With proper forward / backward roles on the members of the relation? 
(as stated in the route=bicycle wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle and mentioned by 
Volcker Schmidt and Kevin Kenny)

method (2) By using the tag oneway=yes, (as stated on the route=hiking and 
route=foot wiki page  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot but it causing a lot of 
confusion here)

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?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking says

"to indicate that the route is to be walked in only one direction, according to the 
signposts on the ground"

So ONLY in one direction.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot

"to indicate that the route is to be walked in only one direction, according to the 
signposts on the ground"

So ONLY in one direction.

The signposts on the ground should state something about 'one way only".

If the signpost don't say anything about one way only but are aligned it a 
particular direction then oneway=recommended is a better value to use.

TheLarapinta Trail relation 3066363 is such a trial - the signs are 
oriented best for an east to west walk. But you can walk it in any 
direction.



Where the confusion arises is the "recommendation of direction" rather than the 
direction being compulsory.

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 
> > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GWB, quite a lot!)
> > I'm not talking about individual ways that are oneway restricted for 
> > pedestrians
>
>
> then it is clear that neither oneway nor oneway:foot apply (both are legal 
> prescriptions and not just recommendations).

I agree with you 100% with oneway on ways.

On routes, I'm not so sure.  If a route runs in only one direction,
and you follow its constituent ways in the opposite direction, you're
not following the route. It's an existential, rather than a legal
question, and I'm not enough of a philosopher to solve it.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GWB, quite a lot!)
> I'm not talking about individual ways that are oneway restricted for 
> pedestrians


then it is clear that neither oneway nor oneway:foot apply (both are legal 
prescriptions and not just recommendations).

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

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

[Hufkratzer]

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 route=bicycle (not 
documented in the wiki) [...]


direction=* would be applicable in some cases where oneway=cw/ccw is 
not. Example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4496757#map=13/50.0507/8.8246


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

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

[Paul Allen]

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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 list), these things tend
to persist on the Wiki because nobody really wants to take the
confrontational act of silencing the voices in someone else's head.

And you're just envious because the voices won't talk to you!

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

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

[Paul Allen]

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 that
"because somebody put it there" may actually be the ultimate cause.
Something may appear
in the wiki for no reason other than the voices in somebody's head told
that person to put it
there.

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

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

[s8evq]

> 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 
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 https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GWB, quite a 
lot!)
I'm not talking about individual ways that are oneway restricted for 
pedestrians.


How to properly indicate the preferred direction of this kind of relation? 

method (1) With proper forward / backward roles on the members of the relation? 
(as stated in the route=bicycle wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle and mentioned by 
Volcker Schmidt and Kevin Kenny)

method (2) By using the tag oneway=yes, (as stated on the route=hiking and 
route=foot wiki page  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot but it causing a lot of 
confusion here)

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?

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 only to vehicles, on other roads it is also clear that the 
oneway doesn’t apply to pedestrians.

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

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

[Markus]

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 riders.

If pedestrians are also only allowed to walk in one direction, it
seems you need to add oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no.

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway#Interpretation_for_routing

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 tag implies a legalrestriction, and 
>>> I doubt it is illegal to walk ahiking route in the 
>>> 'wrong' direction.
>>>
>>
>> I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it'sonly ~300 
>> m's long & it's on a elevated suspensionbridge!, not a 
>> normal track, but it is posted asentrance only at this end & 
>> exit only at the other.
>>
>
> The overland track is one way during the normal working season, andit 
> does have a number of resident rangers to enforce the rules. (~60km)
>  > https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=37728 
> 
>  The milford track has similar restrictions (~50 km)
>  > https://www.doc.govt.nz/milfordtrack 
>  
>  There are probably more... 
>
Orla Perć in Poland - mapped as oneway=yes + highway=path

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/614196499 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orla_Perć 


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

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

[s8evq]

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
> the direction that the waymarked route follows.

Thank you for the reply, Kevin. Using forward/backward roles on the members of 
the relation is also how I did it once on a route relation I added once: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8974019


 
> There isn't any 'clockwise' or 'counterclockwise'; the relation reads
> from start to end, and indicates which way it runs on each way it
> visits. The fact that the end node is the same as the start node is
> enough to make it circular.

Would this make you conclude that the sentence "proposal: It might be useful to 
indicate if the route is marked in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction, 
i.e. oneway=cw or oneway=ccw. " on the wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking is not necessary, 
confusing and can be removed?

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 are no 
> branches, and only if all members of the route were oneway ways. Very special 
> case.
> I normally handle oneway ways in a route which is bidirectional using the 
> forward/backward roles on the ways concerned (as is also normal practice on 
> bus routes around my part of the world). This is frequent for bicycles, but I 
> would expect it to be very rare for pedestrians.
> 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.
> If a hiking route contains parts which are oneway for pedestians then this 
> should be tagged an all ways to which this applies with "oneway:foot=yes".

I'm confused, too.

There is one walking route local to me that is a circular route, about
11 km, through a small nature preserve.  It's certainly lawful to go
an any of the ways in either direction, and there are surely lots of
people in the preserve who aren't following the route but just taking
a different walk.  But the route itself goes only one way, because
it's not waymarked in the opposite direction.

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
the direction that the waymarked route follows.

There isn't any 'clockwise' or 'counterclockwise'; the relation reads
from start to end, and indicates which way it runs on each way it
visits. The fact that the end node is the same as the start node is
enough to make it circular.

Or rather, that *was* the plan.  I'm copying this from my notes, and
before I got around to revising the tagging, the trail maintainers put
up waymarks in the anti-clockwise direction, so I no longer had to
work through what to do about one-way marking.

This style of tagging (a one-way route overlaid on two-way ways, or
vice versa) would even allow for the situation where a hiking route
would have a section that walks on a roadway against the direction of
traffic (add oneway:foot=no to the way, but include oneway in the
relation if needed).  Long-distance routes in the US frequently
include short sections of road walk, to borrow a bridge, or to visit a
village where everyone on a route stops to resupply anyway, or simply
because no right-of-way has been secured for the trail or no trail has
yet been constructed, so it's pretty common to have route=hiking
overlaid on a small piece of road.

I don't know what a routing engine might do in the face of this, but
frankly, the whole idea of using a routing engine to choose among
hiking paths strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.

(Memo to self: come spring,
https://www.nynjtc.org/news/victory-long-path-schoharie-section-trail-permanently-protected
https://www.nynjtc.org/news/everyday-efforts-protect-and-improve-long-path
and several other relocations need mapping!)

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

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

[s8evq]

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 they are only visible 
when you do the hike in one specific direction. If you would do the hiking 
route in the other direction, you wouldn't see most of the signs.

In Belgium, we have many hundreds of these walking routes mapped:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Local_Walking_Routes_Flanders
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Local_Walking_Routes_Wallonie
most of these are roundtrip, and a lot with one specific direction only.



My question remains: how do you deal with this, and what about the statement 
currently in the wiki about this?



On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:50:37 -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 doesn't make much sense for a hiking route to use "clockwise" (why the
> "cw" abbreviation???) or "anticlockwise" ("ccw" is presumably an
> abbreviation for the American English word "counterclockwise"). Because
> those terms only make sense if the route is a closed loop that doesn't
> self-intersect, have branches, or anything complicated.
> 
> So "oneway=yes" solves all these cases quite simply. Avoid "oneway=-1" by
> the way, just use "oneway=yes" and reverse the direction of the way if it's
> wrong.
> 
> My two cents (from extensive work on bus routes, not hiking routes).
> 
> John
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM s8evq  wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dhiking=prev=1453761
> >
> > Since then, this tag has not been used that much:
> > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=cw (4 times)
> > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=ccw (6 times)
> >
> >
> > 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 route=bicycle (not
> > documented in the wiki)
> >
> > Could somebody clear this up, for a novice user like me? How to correctly
> > add the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle
> > relations? What is the status or meaning of this "proposal: " wording? And
> > what about using direction?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[Volker Schmidt]

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 ways. Very
special case.
I normally handle oneway ways in a route which is bidirectional using the
forward/backward roles on the ways concerned (as is also normal practice on
bus routes around my part of the world). This is frequent for bicycles, but
I would expect it to be very rare for pedestrians.
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.
If a hiking route contains parts which are oneway for pedestians then this
should be tagged an all ways to which this applies with "oneway:foot=yes".



On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 23:19, Jmapb  wrote:

> 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 example offhand.)
> >>
> >
> > oneway=recommended? matches present use of  4wd=recommended
>
> I like it. Now I just have to remember where to put it.
>
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[Jmapb]

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 example offhand.)




oneway=recommended? matches present use of  4wd=recommended


I like it. Now I just have to remember where to put it.

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

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

[Warin]

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 & exit only at the other.


The overland track is one way during the normal walking season, and 
it does have a number of resident rangers to enforce the rules. (~60 km)

walking not working, though for some it is 'work'.

https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=37728
The milford track has similar restrictions (~50 km)
https://www.doc.govt.nz/milfordtrack

There are probably more...


Thanks both of you for the examples... I was trying to think of one 
but came up short. These show what oneway=yes on a footway is for.


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 example offhand.)




oneway=recommended? matches present use of  4wd=recommended
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jmapb]

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 overland track is one way during the normal working season, and it 
does have a number of resident rangers to enforce the rules. (~60 km)

https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=37728
The milford track has similar restrictions (~50 km)
https://www.doc.govt.nz/milfordtrack

There are probably more...


Thanks both of you for the examples... I was trying to think of one but 
came up short. These show what oneway=yes on a footway is for.


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 example offhand.)


J


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

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

[Warin]

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 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 overland track is one way during the normal working season, and it 
does have a number of resident rangers to enforce the rules. (~60 km)

https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=37728
The milford track has similar restrictions (~50 km)
https://www.doc.govt.nz/milfordtrack

There are probably more...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 bridge!, not a normal track, but it is posted
as entrance only at this end & exit only at the other.

https://www.natureplayqld.org.au/places/o-reilly-s-tree-top-walk

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.23272/153.13800

But oneway=yes is definitely the way to go (sorry, that just slipped out!),
rather then clockwise.

Thanks

Graeme

>
> I am gradually working my way along a local long distance hiking route and
> whilst I walk all the sections in order, I do not walk them all in the same
> direction as starting at a remote bus stop in the sticks is ok but not for
> finishing.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
> ___
> 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] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[Philip Barnes]

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 doesn't make much sense for a hiking route to use "clockwise" (why
> the "cw" abbreviation???) or "anticlockwise" ("ccw" is presumably an
> abbreviation for the American English word "counterclockwise").
> Because those terms only make sense if the route is a closed loop
> that doesn't self-intersect, have branches, or anything complicated.
> 
> So "oneway=yes" solves all these cases quite simply. Avoid "oneway=-
> 1" by the way, just use "oneway=yes" and reverse the direction of the
> way if it's wrong.
> 
> My two cents (from extensive work on bus routes, not hiking routes).
> 
Although the oneway tag implies a legal restriction, and I doubt it is
illegal to walk a hiking route in the 'wrong' direction. 

I am gradually working my way along a local long distance hiking route
and whilst I walk all the sections in order, I do not walk them all in
the same direction as starting at a remote bus stop in the sticks is ok
but not for finishing.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Johnparis]

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 the
"cw" abbreviation???) or "anticlockwise" ("ccw" is presumably an
abbreviation for the American English word "counterclockwise"). Because
those terms only make sense if the route is a closed loop that doesn't
self-intersect, have branches, or anything complicated.

So "oneway=yes" solves all these cases quite simply. Avoid "oneway=-1" by
the way, just use "oneway=yes" and reverse the direction of the way if it's
wrong.

My two cents (from extensive work on bus routes, not hiking routes).

John


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM s8evq  wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dhiking=prev=1453761
>
> Since then, this tag has not been used that much:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=cw (4 times)
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=ccw (6 times)
>
>
> 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 route=bicycle (not
> documented in the wiki)
>
> Could somebody clear this up, for a novice user like me? How to correctly
> add the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle
> relations? What is the status or meaning of this "proposal: " wording? And
> what about using direction?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

[s8evq]

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.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dhiking=prev=1453761

Since then, this tag has not been used that much:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=cw (4 times)
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=ccw (6 times)


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 route=bicycle (not 
documented in the wiki)

Could somebody clear this up, for a novice user like me? How to correctly add 
the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle relations? What 
is the status or meaning of this "proposal: " wording? And what about using 
direction?

Thanks





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