And, I would interpret the route direction for pedestrians as a suggestion, not an access restriction or physical restriction.
Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 7 dec. 2019 om 04:11 heeft Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> het > volgende geschreven: > > > On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>> On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>> I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's >>> signposted for one direction. >> >> >> I would prefer being more explicit in the tag name, e.g. >> sign_direction=forward/backward/both >> >> pedestrian_oneway=yes >> or maybe >> >> oneway:foot=yes > > Where it's a restriction on the walking path, then oneway=yes on the way, > when it's a restriction on the route a oneway=yes on the route is the way to > go. > > We already have a well documented and accepted way to tag conditional > restrictions via > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions. So no need for > a new tag, oneway:foot=yes/no is the way to go. If you want to be explicit > that's fine, but I think oneway=yes on a highway=footway,path already implies > it's oneway for pedestrians. > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
