Effect of oneway on pedestrians?

Help and support Tagging help & support
, ,
82

So, it would seem to me that generally:

  • some countries mostly use oneway to apply only to vehicles
  • some countries mostly use oneway to apply both to vehicles and pedestrians
  • some countries are even more ambiguous, sometimes meaning for oneway to apply only to vehicles, and sometimes meaning applying to both vehicles and pedestrians.

So, give assumption above, what should we do about oneway=* ambiguity? (Discourse poll instructions AFAIUT: 1 is your most preferred choice, 2 second most preferred, etc. Abstain for those you don’t want at all.)

  • Appeal to the users and editor writers (on the wiki, issue trackers, forum, etc) to always (also) use unambiguous oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no when oneway=yes would apply to pedestrians
  • Do mechanical edit (in clear-cut countries only!) to (also) add unambiguous oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no everwhere where it has oneway=yes (probably with helpful source:oneway:foot=assumed from oneway=* in $COUNTRYNAME)
  • Create a “what oneway=* probably means in each country” wiki (ala Default access restrictions) and hope data consumers (as well as all editors) know it and use it.
  • Propose tag like oneway_includes_pedestrians=yes/no (actual name TBD) and put that country administrative polygons, and instruct data consumers that what oneway=* actually means in some country is dependant on processing that first.
  • Deprecate oneway=* and suggest replacement oneway:vehicle=* and oneway:foot=* (and others more detailed like oneway:bicycle etc. as needed) tags.
  • Put our wishes about “what oneway=* should mean” in the wiki, and hope for the Genie to notice it and fulfill our wishes worldwide by some magic
  • Ignore the issue; let those router-writing developers earn their pay! It was hard to map the data, so it should be hard to use it too!
  • None of the above (write your own suggestion)
0 voters