Example with "oneway=yes" is dangerous
I think this example:
is dangerous as it breaks backward compatibility: routers that understand oneway=yes but don't understand oneway:backward:conditional=* will evaluate it as a simple oneway=yes and send you the wrong way. RicoZ (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
"alternating" and "reversible": why should the direction ber required to switch regularly?
"reversible" doesn't imho indicate this and how else would be road sections mapped that switch direction infrequently and not regularly? The router can't do much about such cases but a possibility to map them should be there - hence I would just strip away the word "regularly" from the definition.
Same for "alternating" - I think it suffices to state that the direction alternates often, the word "regularly" is just added noise in the definition. It is next to impossible to define what "regularly" means if it alternates often. RicoZ (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
We know that the vast majority uses the oneway=yes/no/-1 scheme, and nobody (with few exception) uses the oneway:forward/backward=yes scheme. So I suppose it is natural to use oneway:conditional=yes @ (...); -1 @ (...) for conditional situations. But the wiki text says oneway:forward/backward:conditional=yes @ (...) for such cases. I want to know why. What is the superior point for the latter scheme? --Mzaki (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)