Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I just want wikis to be in accordance between them. As they are now, the
induce mappers with doubt.

Mind you that "These ways should all point direction of travel and imply
oneway=yes (like junction=roundabout), therefore the oneway tag is
redundant and should be avoided." is not telling that it's forbidden to
use oneway=yes, only it should be avoided.



Às 11:25 de 18/08/2020, Steve Doerr escreveu:

On 17/08/2020 15:02, Matthew Woehlke wrote:


FWIW, I am also in favor of preferring explicit tagging;
oneway={yes,no} says that someone paid enough attention to
intentionally annotate the way thusly. An implicit tag is impossible
to tell apart from an oversight. IMHO we should never, *ever*
discourage adding explicit tags even if they are "superfluous".


Important to remember that yes and no are not the only values. There
is also -1.




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

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Steve Doerr]

On 17/08/2020 15:02, Matthew Woehlke wrote:


FWIW, I am also in favor of preferring explicit tagging; 
oneway={yes,no} says that someone paid enough attention to 
intentionally annotate the way thusly. An implicit tag is impossible 
to tell apart from an oversight. IMHO we should never, *ever* 
discourage adding explicit tags even if they are "superfluous".


Important to remember that yes and no are not the only values. There is 
also -1.


--
Steve

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 14/08/2020 17.57, António Madeira via Tagging wrote:

In this

section, I suggest changing the text:
"These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with
oneway=yes."

to

"These ways should all point direction of travel and imply oneway=yes
(like junction=roundabout), therefore the oneway tag is redundant and
should be avoided."


FWIW, I am also in favor of preferring explicit tagging; oneway={yes,no} 
says that someone paid enough attention to intentionally annotate the 
way thusly. An implicit tag is impossible to tell apart from an 
oversight. IMHO we should never, *ever* discourage adding explicit tags 
even if they are "superfluous".


(I even wish Osmose wouldn't complain about oneway=yes on roundabouts...)

--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[António Madeira via Tagging]

iD already adds oneway=yes automatically, so no problem there. I don't
know about JOSM, but that can be added as a warning/alert if there isn't
one already.


Às 22:04 de 14/08/2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick escreveu:




On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 07:59, António Madeira via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

In this

section, I suggest changing the text:
"These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged
with oneway=yes."

to

"These ways should all point direction of travel and imply
oneway=yes (like junction=roundabout), therefore the oneway tag is
redundant and should be avoided."


While I agree with you that the oneway tag is probably redundant, if
we remove them are we possibly opening ourselves / OSM to criticism
"But my GPS didn't say it was one-way only" (& yes, I have that little
faith in any number of drivers! :-()

Thanks

Graeme


___
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] oneway=yes on motorways

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 07:59, António Madeira via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> In this
> 
> section, I suggest changing the text:
> "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with
> oneway=yes."
>
> to
>
> "These ways should all point direction of travel and imply oneway=yes
> (like junction=roundabout), therefore the oneway tag is redundant and
> should be avoided."
>

While I agree with you that the oneway tag is probably redundant, if we
remove them are we possibly opening ourselves / OSM to criticism "But my
GPS didn't say it was one-way only" (& yes, I have that little faith in any
number of drivers! :-()

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[António Madeira via Tagging]

In this

section, I suggest changing the text:
"These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with
oneway=yes."

to

"These ways should all point direction of travel and imply oneway=yes
(like junction=roundabout), therefore the oneway tag is redundant and
should be avoided."



Às 17:09 de 14/08/2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escreveu:

It is nicer to avoid contradictions, but I am not planning to work on
this specific case.

If you want you may propose specific edit and post it here for review
(or make it and discuss if someone disagrees).

"Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored.

Aug 14, 2020, 20:35 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

So, should this contradiction be eliminated from the wiki or not?



Às 09:32 de 26/05/2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escreveu:

Based on my experience it is usually better to write something,
even not ideal and
ask for a review.

"Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored.

May 26, 2020, 10:58 by vosc...@gmail.com :

Please come back to my original question: /I would like to
eliminate the contradiction in the wiki. What wording do you
propose?/

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 10:23, Jean-Marc Liotier
mailto:j...@liotier.org>> wrote:

On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed
that the JOSM style
that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes
not show ways
properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's
probably a bug in the
style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.


I'm on the side of "team tag explicitly" on this.  If
anything, it gives validators more to work with if you
start doing something weird.


Isn't that what oneway=no is for ?

___
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] oneway=yes on motorways

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

It is nicer to avoid contradictions, but I am not planning to work on this 
specific case.

If you want you may propose specific edit and post it here for review 
(or make it and discuss if someone disagrees).

"Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored.

Aug 14, 2020, 20:35 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> So, should this contradiction be eliminated from the wiki or not?
>  
>  
>  
> Às 09:32 de 26/05/2020, Mateusz  Konieczny via Tagging escreveu:
>
>> Based on my experience it is usually better to writesomething, even 
>> not ideal and
>> ask for a review.
>>
>> "Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored.
>>
>> May 26, 2020, 10:58 by >> vosc...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> Please come back to my original question: >>> Iwould like to 
>>> eliminate the contradiction in the wiki. Whatwording do you 
>>> propose?
>>>
>>> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 10:23,Jean-Marc Liotier <>>> 
>>> j...@liotier.org>>> > wrote:
>>>
 On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

>
>
>> It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have  
>> noticed that the JOSM style
>> that shows lane counts and lane use will  
>> sometimes not show ways
>> properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but  that's 
>> probably a bug in the
>> style more than an indictment of implying  
>> oneway=yes.
>>
>
> I'm on the side of "team tagexplicitly" on this.  If 
> anything, it givesvalidators more to work with if you 
> start doingsomething weird.
>

 Isn't that what oneway=no is for ?

 ___
 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] oneway=yes on motorways

[António Madeira via Tagging]

So, should this contradiction be eliminated from the wiki or not?


Às 09:32 de 26/05/2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escreveu:

Based on my experience it is usually better to write something, even
not ideal and
ask for a review.

"Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored.

May 26, 2020, 10:58 by vosc...@gmail.com:

Please come back to my original question: /I would like to
eliminate the contradiction in the wiki. What wording do you propose?/

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 10:23, Jean-Marc Liotier mailto:j...@liotier.org>> wrote:

On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that
the JOSM style
that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not
show ways
properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a
bug in the
style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.


I'm on the side of "team tag explicitly" on this.  If
anything, it gives validators more to work with if you start
doing something weird.


Isn't that what oneway=no is for ?

___
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] oneway=yes on motorways

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:34 PM Steve Doerr 
wrote:

> I would think that oneway=yes or oneway=-1 was required on motorways in
> order to identify the direction of one-way travel. For roundabouts, it must
> be easier provided data consumers know the national rules.
>
Seems pretty easy to tag it anyway and remove all doubt.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Steve Doerr]

I would think that oneway=yes or oneway=-1 was required on motorways in 
order to identify the direction of one-way travel. For roundabouts, it 
must be easier provided data consumers know the national rules.


Steve

On 24/05/2020 21:26, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the 
oneway tag between the wiki pages key:oneway 
 and motorway 
 .

The former states:
"Some tags (such as junction 
=roundabout 
, 
highway =motorway 
 and 
others) imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,

the latter states:
"These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with 
oneway =yes" 



What is the agreed standard, if any?

Volker

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



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 3:22 AM Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:

> On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style
>> that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways
>> properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a bug in the
>> style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.
>>
>
> I'm on the side of "team tag explicitly" on this.  If anything, it gives
> validators more to work with if you start doing something weird.
>
> Isn't that what oneway=no is for ?
>
Or literally either value.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Based on my experience it is usually better to write something, even not ideal 
and
ask for a review.

"Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored.

May 26, 2020, 10:58 by vosc...@gmail.com:

> Please come back to my original question: > I would like to eliminate the 
> contradiction in the wiki. What wording do you propose?
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 10:23, Jean-Marc Liotier <> j...@liotier.org> > wrote:
>
>> On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
 It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that  the 
 JOSM style
  that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not  show 
 ways
  properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a  
 bug in the
  style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.

>>>
>>> I'm on the side of "team tag explicitly" on  this.  If anything, it 
>>> gives validators more to work with if  you start doing something 
>>> weird.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that what oneway=no is for ?
>>
>> ___
>>  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] oneway=yes on motorways

[Volker Schmidt]

Please come back to my original question: *I would like to eliminate the
contradiction in the wiki. What wording do you propose?*

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 10:23, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:

> On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style
>> that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways
>> properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a bug in the
>> style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.
>>
>
> I'm on the side of "team tag explicitly" on this.  If anything, it gives
> validators more to work with if you start doing something weird.
>
> Isn't that what oneway=no is for ?
> ___
> 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] oneway=yes on motorways

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM
style
that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways
properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a bug in the
style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.


I'm on the side of "team tag explicitly" on this.  If anything, it 
gives validators more to work with if you start doing something weird.


Isn't that what oneway=no is for ?

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

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, May 24, 2020, 18:51 Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

> On 5/24/20 15:26, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway
> > tag between the wiki pages key:oneway
> >  and motorway
> >  .
> > The former states:
> > "Some tags (such as junction
> > =roundabout
> > , highway
> > =motorway
> >  and others)
> > imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,
> > the latter states:
> > "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with
> > oneway =yes"
> > 
> >
> > What is the agreed standard, if any?
>
> It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style
> that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways
> properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a bug in the
> style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.
>

I'm on the side of "team tag explicitly" on this.  If anything, it gives
validators more to work with if you start doing something weird.

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

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 5/24/20 15:26, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway
> tag between the wiki pages key:oneway
>  and motorway
>  .
> The former states:
> "Some tags (such as junction
> =roundabout
> , highway
> =motorway
>  and others)
> imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,
> the latter states:
> "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with
> oneway =yes"
> 
> 
> What is the agreed standard, if any?

It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style
that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways
properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a bug in the
style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> On 24. May 2020, at 23:54, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> I am aware of the histroy - I only wanted to bring up the contradiction 
> between the two wiki pages before changing the wiki.


The situation is different for roundabouts and motorways. In both cases in 
absence of the tag oneway it is assumed to be yes for these elements, but you 
should add a oneway tag explicitly for motorways (for roundabouts not).

Looking at taginfo confirms that 99,64% of all motorways have a oneway tag: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=motorway#combinations

i.e. adding the tag is recommended and also done in reality.

From all junction =roundabout only 18% are combined with the oneway tag 

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

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:52:54PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I am aware of the histroy - I only wanted to bring up the contradiction
> between the two wiki pages *before* changing the wiki.

Feel free - The "new" (Most likely a decade old) way is that motorways
and roundabouts have an implicit oneway=yes and dont need it.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Volker Schmidt]

I am aware of the histroy - I only wanted to bring up the contradiction
between the two wiki pages *before* changing the wiki.

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 23:11, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:26:19PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway
> > tag between the wiki pages key:oneway
> >  and motorway
> >  .
> > The former states:
> > "Some tags (such as junction
> > =roundabout
> > , highway
> > =motorway
> >  and others)
> > imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,
> > the latter states:
> > "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with
> oneway
> > =yes"
> > 
> >
> > What is the agreed standard, if any?
>
> In ancient OSM history roundabouts and motorways had oneways. This has
> since been obsoleted and implicitly assumed on those ways.
>
> At least thats my memories from 1 1/2 decades.
>
> Flo
> --
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
> UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away
> ___
> 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] oneway=yes on motorways

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:26:19PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway
> tag between the wiki pages key:oneway
>  and motorway
>  .
> The former states:
> "Some tags (such as junction
> =roundabout
> , highway
> =motorway
>  and others)
> imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,
> the latter states:
> "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with oneway
> =yes"
> 
> 
> What is the agreed standard, if any?

In ancient OSM history roundabouts and motorways had oneways. This has
since been obsoleted and implicitly assumed on those ways.

At least thats my memories from 1 1/2 decades.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Volker Schmidt]

PS: The standard rendering assumes junction=roundabout, highway=motorway,
and highway=motorway_link to be oneway=yes by default
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1363)

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 22:26, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway
> tag between the wiki pages key:oneway
>  and motorway
>  .
> The former states:
> "Some tags (such as junction
> =roundabout
> , highway
> =motorway
>  and others)
> imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,
> the latter states:
> "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with oneway
> =yes"
> 
>
> What is the agreed standard, if any?
>
> Volker
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging