On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski > <ja...@piorkowski.ca>: >> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> >> 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) >> [everything else on oneway:foot, foot:oneway, foot:backward and foot:forward >> less than 100 uses per tag] > > 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.
I was mostly interested in what "tagging scheme" people have come up with on their own, in absence of wiki/tagging list guidance. These tags were spread across Europe (and some smattering elsewhere in the world) so it's unlikely to be a single editor or an import driving this. "Folksonomy" was a term for this a while back. I agree that oneway:foot=no is a redundant tag in vast majority of cases. However it is illustrative of how people reason about this property and what tag name feels natural to them. --Jarek _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging