On 07/12/19 23:59, Peter Elderson wrote:
I wiould mark the route oneway=yes to indicate oneway signposting,
For some it is not the signposting but a legal requirement that the
hiking route foot traffic is in one direction only. And it is enforced.
The tag oneway=yes is taken to be a legal restriction elsewhere, and
should remain with that interpretation here.
For signage that is visible in one direction only there is already an
existing tag for it.
then oneway:foot=yes (or whatever is in use to indicate an access
restriction on a way) on the ways where it is actually forbidden.
I would not take oneway=yes on a route relation to indicate legal
restriction on its members.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op za 7 dec. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Mateusz Konieczny
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
There are some hiking routes
signposted with allowing travel in one
direction and forbidding in the opposite.
7 Dec 2019, 13:04 by [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>:
Cannot be legal for a pedestrian route, I think. So practical.
Mvg Peter Elderson
Op 7 dec. 2019 om 10:53 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
het volgende geschreven:
sent from a phone
On 7. Dec 2019, at 04:36, Warin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If oneway=yes is placed on a route relation then any
excursions and appropriate approaches will have to be
separate relations.
is it a legal restriction or a practical one if placed on
a route relation?
Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
