In my opinion, there—surely—are other ways! Including continuing with the current usage where a plain oneway= tag always ever applies only to vehicles (bicycles inclusive), and oneway:foot= only to pedestrians. No need for a massive re-survey either, just tag the relatively few :foot exceptions—just like all the other exceptions that we already have (see below). Hooray!
This was one of the reasons I voted against the proposal. The Rationale-section of the proposal text was promising: merely formalize the :foot-qualifier and educate people of its existence. I’m all for that! The proposal examples, however advocated the use of :[vehicle]-specific postfixes to highways where a plain oneway= was sufficient. I’m against that.
Why not use the postfixes only for the exceptions. E.g. two-way bicycle traffic allowed by a traffic sign on an otherwise (traffic signed) oneway street. In these cases (and others comparabe to it), one indeed needs also the vehicle specific postfix to fully and unambiguously express the restrictions (oneway=yes + oneway:bicycle=no). Or on the rare one way foot traffic highways.