Clarification: I'm meant a route relation for the whole canal, not just to define travel direction.

On 17/09/2016 13:45, Colin Smale wrote:

I would expect that the situation where the flow direction conflicts with the traffic direction is likely to be quite short - under bridges, around obstacles etc. In these cases we could always call on our old friend "oneway=-1" or "oneway=reverse" to mean "traffic direction is opposite to the flow direction". Having to create a route relation is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.


On 2016-09-17 14:35, Dave F wrote:

I've seen it used on navigable canals to indicate traffic direction.
If there is a route relation I think it should be indicate with forward/backward roles.
If not then for clarity, maybe something like traffic_flow=backwards?
Adding a route relation would be preferable though.

Dave F.

On 17/09/2016 13:20, Andy Townsend wrote:
I've certainly used "oneway=yes" on inland waterways to document signed traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense. There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in error to indicate water flow direction, but you'd need to ask whoever the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common sense).
*From: *LeTopographeFou
*Sent: *Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17
*To: *
*Reply To: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
*Subject: *[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways


According to the waterway=stream wiki page (

/If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e. the way direction follows the flow)/

As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes.

Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete oneway=yes tags for streams?

The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals...



Tagging mailing list

Tagging mailing list <>

Tagging mailing list

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to