Proposal talk:Oneway type
Example mapping
As usual this needs example mapping in some town, there is always coming up something new in practice :)--Jojo4u (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Right. But if I start tagging in my hometown, I need help to find better tag-values names, or are the proposed plausible? --HalverHahn (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Values in general
Are all those values really needed?
What is the real difference between a residential true oneway and a service (true) oneway? Both need a visible sign on a map for mind-routing. Okay, may be there is a difference for bicycle-QA.
What is the real difference between separate_direction and separate_carriageway / road_divider / trunk (or link)?
All do not need a visible sign on a map - and I can not see any other need for differentiation.--GeorgFausB (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The intention was to select all (true) oneway roads and look in which of them cycling in the other direction is allowed. Seceltion by sign don't work, because a few oneway roads don't have a sign, only painted arrow at asphalt (Main road example without sign: G*Maps). Further I thought, maybe someone want distinguish also between separate carriageways without road divider. So I tried to create matching categories for each case. --HalverHahn (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Dual carriagway
I guess we can introduce dual_carriagway as special type of separated_carriagway? This tag is asked for: Relation:dual_carriageway, [1], [2].--Jojo4u (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I would keep separated_carriageway since there are motorways which are really far divided for some segments (example]).--Jojo4u (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
They are still only separate_direction I think.----GeorgFausB (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Trunk?
![](/w/images/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
From the forum thread I guess you mean link instead of trunk?--Jojo4u (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yes, this is an error in at the proposal page. I will correct it now. --HalverHahn (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No_entry/no_exit
![](/w/images/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Often ways with no-entry and no-exit sign File:3.1.svg are not tagged with Relation:restriction but as short way with oneway=yes. I myself use this convenient method. So add oneway_type=no_entry (the sign is called no entry, see "Signs giving orders" [3]).? I guess we can skip oneway_type=no_exit since restriction=no_exit relation value only exists because of the different count of roles.--Jojo4u (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
oneway_type=separate_direction / separate_carriageway
![](/w/images/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Do you really expect to add this tag to every motorway? At least in Germany motorway includes this tag, so it seems to be redundant! If this true you should add a policy for a bot.
oneway_type=service
If I understand right, every highway=service which is oneway should be tagged with oneway_type=service too. Seems to be redundant.
- Yes I think so, too. But what about small road tagged with highway=service + service=alley? Should we imply to all highway=service which is not tagged with servoce=alley imaginary, so we can delete oneway_type=service from the proposal? (Beside that, I think alley=yes would fit better, as well in combination with highway=unclassified/residential/living_street/pedestrian) --HalverHahn (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)