Talk:Proposed features/oneway type

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)



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)


Resolved: Thanks, good idea.

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

Resolved: No, motorways should implies this tag. Proposal changed. --HalverHahn (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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.


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)
Sorry, I do not understand.--Hfst (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)