Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski < [email protected]>:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural > language. > > Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far, > according to Taginfo: > > oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region) > oneway:foot=yes 89 > oneway:foot=-1, 1 occurrence > > foot:oneway=no 48 > foot:oneway=yes 2 > > foot:backward=designated 45 > foot:backward=yes 41 > foot:backward=no 40 > foot:backward=use_sidepath (not really applicable here) 18 > foot:backward=permissive 6 > foot:backward=private 1 > > foot:forward=no 41 > foot:forward=designated (not really applicable?) 36 > foot:forward=use_sidepath (not really applicable) 23 > foot:forward=yes 20 > foot:forward=customers 4 (only customers and only one-way?) > foot:forward=destination 3 (might be Hotel California) > foot:forward=permissive 2 what is your interpretation of these numbers? Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no with 1267 occurences. Let me put this in relation to the 15 Million oneway=* and 11.6 M oneway=yes. All other variants reach not even 100 global uses. IMHO with such tiny numbers we should choose a representation that best works for us, rather than let us guide from statistics without a sufficiently large basis. Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
