How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
44 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
Although unusual, oneway on pedestrian highways (path, footway, track) is
possible in some places.

Cases of oneway pedestrian traffic includes some hiking trails, border crossing,
exit-only passages and more.

How to tag this?

oneway=yes is currently described on OSM Wiki as applying only to vehicles
Also, it is sometimes used on ways such as
highway=footway + bicycle=yes + oneway=yes to indicate that
such way is oneway for cyclists.

But sometimes it is used on paths and footways to indicate that such way is
oneway for pedestrians (especially in cases where only pedestrians are allowed)
to use it.

There is oneway:foot=yes but it is considered as problematic because
"According to how conditional restriction syntax works, adding a mode of
transport such as :foot only ever limits who the tag applies to, it doesn't
normally add someone it applies to."
and

Personally I consider oneway:bicycle=yes or oneway:foot=yes
as not problematic in any way, I want to check whatever I am alone in this.

foot:backward=no was proposed as superior solution to oneway:foot=yes
but personally I really dislike this.

This is posted as there is some ongoing discussion on Wiki and I am interested in
experience/opinions of more people.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

dieterdreist
Am Mi., 8. Jan. 2020 um 22:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>:
But sometimes it is used on paths and footways to indicate that such way is
oneway for pedestrians (especially in cases where only pedestrians are allowed)
to use it.


I'd put it like this: "with the intention to indicate that such way is oneway for pedestrians", because oneway can not apply to pedestrians, they are excluded by the general definition, and if we changed it, we would break a lot more than those few exceptions of actual oneway for pedestrians.
 



There is oneway:foot=yes but it is considered as problematic because
"According to how conditional restriction syntax works, adding a mode of
transport such as :foot only ever limits who the tag applies to, it doesn't
normally add someone it applies to."
and

Personally I consider oneway:bicycle=yes or oneway:foot=yes
as not problematic in any way, I want to check whatever I am alone in this.


it would be introducing another exception, for no good reason, there is already foot:backward=no with the same intended meaning and without the problem, as unlike oneway:foot it is consistent with the well introduced concept of nested tagging.

Cheers
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Jarek Piórkowski
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Although unusual, oneway on pedestrian highways (path, footway, track) is
> possible in some places.
>
> Cases of oneway pedestrian traffic includes some hiking trails, border crossing,
> exit-only passages and more.
>
> How to tag this?

Would just like to note that oneway=yes is established on
highway=steps (usually with conveying=yes, i.e., an escalator) to the
point where a major data consumer openstreetmap-carto supports it,
e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367618960

Arguably escalators are a special case since unlike most footways
there is a mechanical component to them. However I would still be
interested in seeing any tagging for footways maintain at least some
consistency with it.

If this is hugely problematic for data consumers I would not be
opposed to tagging like highway=footway + foot:backward=no, with
oneway=yes allowed as optional for human readability.

--Jarek

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

voschix
oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, for very practical reasons: otherwise we would have a massive problem with all one-way streets without separately mapped sidewalks. 

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 02:16 Jarek Piórkowski, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Although unusual, oneway on pedestrian highways (path, footway, track) is
> possible in some places.
>
> Cases of oneway pedestrian traffic includes some hiking trails, border crossing,
> exit-only passages and more.
>
> How to tag this?

Would just like to note that oneway=yes is established on
highway=steps (usually with conveying=yes, i.e., an escalator) to the
point where a major data consumer openstreetmap-carto supports it,
e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367618960

Arguably escalators are a special case since unlike most footways
there is a mechanical component to them. However I would still be
interested in seeing any tagging for footways maintain at least some
consistency with it.

If this is hugely problematic for data consumers I would not be
opposed to tagging like highway=footway + foot:backward=no, with
oneway=yes allowed as optional for human readability.

--Jarek

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Tagging mailing list
On 09/01/2020 20:17, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,

That tag on footways would apply only to walkers.

DaveF


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

voschix


On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 22:04 Dave F via Tagging, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/01/2020 20:17, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,

That tag on footways would apply only to walkers.

DaveF

... and what about all the roads that either have no separate sidewalks or do not yet have them mapped, or all the mixed foot-cycle paths? We talk hundreds of thousands of ways here.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


sent from a phone

> On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,
>
> That tag on footways would apply only to walkers.


well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and only apply to bicycles?
What about highway=pedestrian?

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

voschix
The problem with oneway=yes|no, if it were to apply to pedestrians as well, would be on all mixed-use ways.
This would exclude highway=pedestrian as this tag excludes all vehicles by definition (careful if it's an "area pedonale" in Italy, which allows bicycles by default and hence requires a bicycle=yes in OSM-speak, but that's beside the point).


On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


sent from a phone

> On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,
>
> That tag on footways would apply only to walkers.


well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and only apply to bicycles?
What about highway=pedestrian?

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 04:48, Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,
>> >
>> > That tag on footways would apply only to walkers.
>>
>> well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and only apply to bicycles?
>> What about highway=pedestrian?
>>
> The problem with oneway=yes|no, if it were to apply to pedestrians as well, would be on all mixed-use ways.
> This would exclude highway=pedestrian as this tag excludes all vehicles by definition (careful if it's an "area pedonale" in Italy, which allows bicycles by default and hence requires a bicycle=yes in OSM-speak, but that's beside the point).

I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
scheme). Perhaps the only other thing could be highway=path, where
there could be some ambiguity with bicycles. But at least we can avoid
the "street with sidewalk" interpretation. Does anyone have
counterexamples?

--Jarek

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

dieterdreist
Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski <[hidden email]>:
I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
scheme).


there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major precaution) on footways:

Cheers
Martin


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Jarek Piórkowski
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
> as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
> already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
> that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
> scheme). Perhaps the only other thing could be highway=path, where
> there could be some ambiguity with bicycles. But at least we can avoid
> the "street with sidewalk" interpretation. Does anyone have
> counterexamples?

Not sure if it's a counterexample, but here's a hw=pedestrian in a park
in Brooklyn, New York:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97010406

- It was originally a vehicle route but was changed to pedestrian with
painted bike and foot lanes. For motor vehicles, only emergency and
specifically permitted delivery traffic is allowed.
- It was *always* one-way, and the one-way signs are still there.
Bicycles and permitted motor vehicles are required to follow the one-way
signs.
- Pedestrians can move in either direction, and this is explicitly
indicated by painted marks in the pedestrian lane. (Thus there's a
oneway:foot=no tag, and it's worth noting that OSRM respects oneway:foot
and routes pedestrians "backwards" but GraphHopper does not.)

Jason


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Jarek Piórkowski
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski <[hidden email]>:
>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
>> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
>> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
>> as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
>> already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
>> that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
>> scheme).
>
> there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major precaution) on footways:
> http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg

Are there many that are one-way for cyclists or for pedestrians but not both?

--Jarek

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Joseph Eisenberg
>> oneway=yes can be interpreted  as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto already does this?

The Openstreetmap-carto style shows one-way arrows on highway=footway
and highway=path because these features can also be used by bicycles
in many places.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/12/20, Jarek Piórkowski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
>>> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
>>> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
>>> as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
>>> already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
>>> that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
>>> scheme).
>>
>> there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other
>> countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major
>> precaution) on footways:
>> http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg
>
> Are there many that are one-way for cyclists or for pedestrians but not
> both?
>
> --Jarek
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Jarek Piórkowski



12 Jan 2020, 00:28 by [hidden email]:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski <[hidden email]>:
I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
scheme).

there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major precaution) on footways:
http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg

Are there many that are one-way for cyclists or for pedestrians but not both?
Footways with oneway bicycle traffic allowed.

Usually tagged as highway=footway + bicycle=yes + oneway=yes

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Jarek Piórkowski
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
> > one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
> > is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
> > as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
> > already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
> > that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
> > scheme). Perhaps the only other thing could be highway=path, where
> > there could be some ambiguity with bicycles. But at least we can avoid
> > the "street with sidewalk" interpretation. Does anyone have
> > counterexamples?
>
> Not sure if it's a counterexample, but here's a hw=pedestrian in a park
> in Brooklyn, New York:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97010406
>
> - It was originally a vehicle route but was changed to pedestrian with
> painted bike and foot lanes. For motor vehicles, only emergency and
> specifically permitted delivery traffic is allowed.
> - It was *always* one-way, and the one-way signs are still there.
> Bicycles and permitted motor vehicles are required to follow the one-way
> signs.
> - Pedestrians can move in either direction, and this is explicitly
> indicated by painted marks in the pedestrian lane. (Thus there's a
> oneway:foot=no tag, and it's worth noting that OSRM respects oneway:foot
> and routes pedestrians "backwards" but GraphHopper does not.)

That's a good counterexample - thanks.

I was thinking of a somewhat similar example of Stanley Park Seawall
in Vancouver, which is also one-way for cyclists, but is mapped with
separate ways for footway and cycleway. However the Seawall has a
physical separation in form of a small curb between the two modes, so
that's defensible. From Esri imagery it looks like Prospect Park ways
are separated by mode only with paint, so having separate ways for the
modes is not as elegant or arguably correct.

So it looks like we will indeed need a new tag to specify one-way-ness
for pedestrians.

--Jarek

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Tagging mailing list
On 1/11/2020 7:13 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging
> <[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97010406
>> - It was originally a vehicle route but was changed to pedestrian with
>> painted bike and foot lanes. For motor vehicles, only emergency and
>> specifically permitted delivery traffic is allowed.
>> - It was *always* one-way, and the one-way signs are still there.
>> Bicycles and permitted motor vehicles are required to follow the one-way
>> signs.
>> - Pedestrians can move in either direction, and this is explicitly
>> indicated by painted marks in the pedestrian lane. (Thus there's a
>> oneway:foot=no tag, and it's worth noting that OSRM respects oneway:foot
>> and routes pedestrians "backwards" but GraphHopper does not.)
> That's a good counterexample - thanks.
>
> I was thinking of a somewhat similar example of Stanley Park Seawall
> in Vancouver, which is also one-way for cyclists, but is mapped with
> separate ways for footway and cycleway. However the Seawall has a
> physical separation in form of a small curb between the two modes, so
> that's defensible. From Esri imagery it looks like Prospect Park ways
> are separated by mode only with paint, so having separate ways for the
> modes is not as elegant or arguably correct.
>
> So it looks like we will indeed need a new tag to specify one-way-ness
> for pedestrians.

Correct, the Prospect Park drives have paint separating the lanes, but
nothing physical. So mapping separate ways would be unorthodox.

Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different
implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I
would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the
highway in question.

More specifically:

  - I would expect a oneway=yes tag apply to foot traffic on footway.
  - I would also expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on
pedestrian, path, and cycleway -- unless explicitly nullified with a
oneway:foot=no tag.
  - I would not expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on
track, service, unclassified, residential, or any larger roadway, unless
made explicit with a oneway:foot=yes tag.

Of course I understand that from a data consumer's point of view it's
irritating when a tag has different meanings in different contexts --
especially if these differences are not formally documented.

Jason


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by voschix
The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian highways"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

dieterdreist


Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]>:
The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian highways"


that's not clear at all, apparently it should not contain highway=pedestrian but only (path, footway and track). Surely I would not call a track a pedestrian highway. Anyway, on this list of highway types, oneway=yes would clearly lead to major problems if the meaning would be changed to apply to pedestrians.

IMHO the best solution on the table is
foot:backward=no

Can you explain where you see issues with this?

Cheers
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Joseph Eisenberg
I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of
this tag is obvios.

"foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/13/20, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
> [hidden email]>:
>
>> The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian
>> highways"
>
>
>
> that's not clear at all, apparently it should not contain
> highway=pedestrian but only (path, footway and track). Surely I would not
> call a track a pedestrian highway. Anyway, on this list of highway types,
> oneway=yes would clearly lead to major problems if the meaning would be
> changed to apply to pedestrians.
>
> IMHO the best solution on the table is
> foot:backward=no
>
> Can you explain where you see issues with this?
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

dieterdreist


Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>:
I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of
this tag is obvios.

"foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive.


According to some contestants, the meaning isn't obvious, as there is the contradiction of "oneway" never applying to pedestrians and having a subtag which behaves as if it did?
Similar self-contradicting tag would be

highway=path AND motorcar=yes

(a path is too narrow for a motorcar, so even if you add motorcar=yes, it will not be accessible, for physical reasons):

Cheers
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123