Since it appears we don’t fully agree on the meaning of oneway=yes, here is a poll to collect opinions. I’m following up this previous poll because one of its options is “don’t use this tag” which does not answer the question of what the tag should apply to.
Please choose how you think a data consumer should interpret a plain oneway=yes on each of the following highway classes. If you feel no options apply because vehicles are surely never allowed on steps or in a building corridor, please suspend your disbelief and imagine that there is some place in the world you are not yet aware of where they are allowed.
If you don’t want to choose an option because you think oneway=yes is too ambiguous and oneway:{mode}=yes/no should always be used instead, this poll is about how to interpret the specified tags as a data consumer, not how you think things should ideally be tagged. Even if tagging does move in that direction, plain old oneway=yes will likely stick around for a long time and data consumers for whom directionality matters will continue interpreting it somehow.
Interpret oneway=yes + highway=tertiary as:
One-way for vehicles and pedestrians.
One-way for vehicles. Two-way for pedestrians.
Two-way for vehicles and pedestrians. (Too ambiguous. Treat as default.)
0voters
Interpret oneway=yes + highway=residential as:
One-way for vehicles and pedestrians.
One-way for vehicles. Two-way for pedestrians.
Two-way for vehicles and pedestrians. (Too ambiguous. Treat as default.)
0voters
Interpret oneway=yes + highway=service as:
One-way for vehicles and pedestrians.
One-way for vehicles. Two-way for pedestrians.
Two-way for vehicles and pedestrians. (Too ambiguous. Treat as default.)
0voters
Interpret oneway=yes + highway=pedestrian as:
One-way for vehicles and pedestrians.
One-way for vehicles. Two-way for pedestrians.
Two-way for vehicles and pedestrians. (Too ambiguous. Treat as default.)
0voters
Interpret oneway=yes + highway=track as:
One-way for vehicles and pedestrians.
One-way for vehicles. Two-way for pedestrians.
Two-way for vehicles and pedestrians. (Too ambiguous. Treat as default.)
0voters
Interpret oneway=yes + highway=cycleway as:
One-way for vehicles and pedestrians.
One-way for vehicles. Two-way for pedestrians.
Two-way for vehicles and pedestrians. (Too ambiguous. Treat as default.)
0voters
Interpret oneway=yes + highway=footway as:
One-way for vehicles and pedestrians.
One-way for vehicles. Two-way for pedestrians.
Two-way for vehicles and pedestrians. (Too ambiguous. Treat as default.)
0voters
Interpret oneway=yes + highway=corridor as:
One-way for vehicles and pedestrians.
One-way for vehicles. Two-way for pedestrians.
Two-way for vehicles and pedestrians. (Too ambiguous. Treat as default.)
0voters
Interpret oneway=yes + highway=steps as:
One-way for vehicles and pedestrians.
One-way for vehicles. Two-way for pedestrians.
Two-way for vehicles and pedestrians. (Too ambiguous. Treat as default.)
0voters
Interpret oneway=yes + highway=path as:
One-way for vehicles and pedestrians.
One-way for vehicles. Two-way for pedestrians.
Two-way for vehicles and pedestrians. (Too ambiguous. Treat as default.)
0voters
To keep things simpler I decided not to include horses in the options here. However, they are neither vehicles nor pedestrians and would likely need distinct consideration.
A lot of these are missing the option for vehicles and/or pedestrians not being permitted. For example highway=footway is not one way for vehicles because it wouldn’t then be a footway.
That option is intentionally not included. See explanation:
highway=footway + bicycle=yes denotes a footway that also allows bicycles and bicycles are considered vehicles in many jurisdictions. For the sake of this poll, assume each case has appropriate access tagging to allow both pedestrians and some sort of vehicle.
Obviously, a one-way is just spaghetti without the chili. Sadly, it isn’t on the drive-through menu. Did you know there’s also a longstanding dispute over the meaning of a four-way? Some believe it should have beans, while others insist it should have onions instead. As a consumer, I’ll take both and make it a five-way.
I would argue that one way pedestrian traffic is a rare occurrence, and as such should have it’s own one-way:foot=yes or similar.
On the other hand, in my experience anything other than a pedestrian should follow the rules for vehicles, including bikes. If that rule is followed is another question entirely.
Considering that, I would think one-way should apply to all non-pedestian traffic unless otherwise noted. And pedestrian traffic should be considered two way unless otherwise noted.
Six ways should be reserved for aircraft and hover cars. Unless you have wings in which case you should cut back on the red bull.
More seriously, I do feel like the poll results so far emphasize that there may be an issue in interpreting bare one-ways in a few cases, like the proposal contends, though I wonder if the differences could be explained by the jurisidictions the poll participants live in or not (i.e. a router could make a reasonable assumption by country). Thanks for the polls - very interesting!
I don’t think it’s about jurisdictions, it’s more like oneway=yes should effect the main user and all above.
I can hear that argument. Though that makes it pretty hard for us mappers. Eg. highway=path,cycleway,footway the main usage might depend on additional access-tags. As well it would be kind of surprising while changing a way from highway=footway+bicycle=designated+foot=designated to highway=cycleway+bicycle=designated+foot=designated would have any effect on it’s oneway definition.
The oneway traffic sign in most jurisdictions applies only to vehicles and peds are usually allowed to walk freely as they like.
So it very much is also about jurisdictions. Your comment on the highway value is also spot on!
In my opinion, the only case in which one might interpret oneway=yes to include pedestrians is on a highway=footway + bicycle=no combo way. All other cases (if only implicitly) admit vehicles, and in those cases the oneway rules (in most jurisdictions) by default concern only the vehicles, and never pedestrians. oneway:foot=yes is very much a rare corner case, and should be treated as such in the tagging (i.e., require the :foot-qualifier).
By example I did not mean an OSM Element but which traffic sign or real life situation leads to this tagging.
Of course I can look at overpass, then go to Mapillary and look by myself and try to find a pattern. I thought this is a no-brainer for Germans (I am not from there) to answer.
Well … if you consider the main users of a shared-use sidewalk to be pedestrians, then to some people, highway=footway makes a lot of sense. As long as it’s not segregated, the pedestrians have priority, and bicyclists need to reduce their speed accordingly.
Not everyone agrees to the “official” mapping guides on the wiki for bicycle infrastructure in Germany. Much as not everyone seems to agree that oneway applies only to vehicles
This means that it’s a shared space with pedestrians having priority. Of course, most people don’t act like it, I’m just saying what the law says.
Literally, it says:
Der Radverkehr darf nicht die Fahrbahn, sondern muss den gemeinsamen Geh- und Radweg benutzen (Radwegbenutzungspflicht). Dabei ist auf den Fußverkehr Rücksicht zu nehmen. Der Fußverkehr darf weder gefährdet noch behindert werden. Erforderlichenfalls ist die Geschwindigkeit an den Fußverkehr anzupassen.
which translates to
The bicycle traffic is not allowed to use the carriagway but must use the shared pedestrian and bicycle path (obligation to use the bike path). In doing so, care must be taken to respect pedestrian traffic. Pedestrian traffic must not be endangered or obstructed. If necessary, the speed must be adjusted to the pedestrian traffic.
I am quite astonished by the result for highway=pedestrian, 45% think a oneway=yes should apply to pedestrians as well. These are not uncommon in Italy (about 6% of all pedestrian highways), and literally none of them are oneway for pedestrians (in Italy). Given that highway=pedestrian is about a wide road (otherwise it would be a footway), I also find it hard to believe that most of these (3% of all global pedestrian highways, which tend to allow vehicles) are oneway for pedestrians.
)