Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
73 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

s8evq
Hello everyone,

I have a question concerning the correct way to add the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle relations.


I saw in the route=hiking wiki page that the usage of oneway=cw and oneway=ccw has been added in 2017, with the word "proposal: " in front.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dhiking&diff=prev&oldid=1453761

Since then, this tag has not been used that much:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=cw (4 times)
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=ccw (6 times)


I see there is also the tag "direction=" with a lot more usage. On mini-roundabouts (as documented in the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction#Clockwise_and_anticlockwise), but sometimes even on route=foot, route=hiking and route=bicycle (not documented in the wiki)

Could somebody clear this up, for a novice user like me? How to correctly add the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle relations? What is the status or meaning of this "proposal: " wording? And what about using direction?

Thanks





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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Johnparis
direction=clockwise/anticlockwise makes sense for a node (like a miniroundabout), not for a way

on a way, the common usage is "oneway=yes" and make sure the way (which is by nature directional) is pointing the right direction.

It doesn't make much sense for a hiking route to use "clockwise" (why the "cw" abbreviation???) or "anticlockwise" ("ccw" is presumably an abbreviation for the American English word "counterclockwise"). Because those terms only make sense if the route is a closed loop that doesn't self-intersect, have branches, or anything complicated.

So "oneway=yes" solves all these cases quite simply. Avoid "oneway=-1" by the way, just use "oneway=yes" and reverse the direction of the way if it's wrong.

My two cents (from extensive work on bus routes, not hiking routes).

John


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM s8evq <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello everyone,

I have a question concerning the correct way to add the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle relations.


I saw in the route=hiking wiki page that the usage of oneway=cw and oneway=ccw has been added in 2017, with the word "proposal: " in front.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dhiking&diff=prev&oldid=1453761

Since then, this tag has not been used that much:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=cw (4 times)
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=ccw (6 times)


I see there is also the tag "direction=" with a lot more usage. On mini-roundabouts (as documented in the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction#Clockwise_and_anticlockwise), but sometimes even on route=foot, route=hiking and route=bicycle (not documented in the wiki)

Could somebody clear this up, for a novice user like me? How to correctly add the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle relations? What is the status or meaning of this "proposal: " wording? And what about using direction?

Thanks





_______________________________________________
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: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Philip Barnes
On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 10:50 -0700, Johnparis wrote:
direction=clockwise/anticlockwise makes sense for a node (like a miniroundabout), not for a way

on a way, the common usage is "oneway=yes" and make sure the way (which is by nature directional) is pointing the right direction.

It doesn't make much sense for a hiking route to use "clockwise" (why the "cw" abbreviation???) or "anticlockwise" ("ccw" is presumably an abbreviation for the American English word "counterclockwise"). Because those terms only make sense if the route is a closed loop that doesn't self-intersect, have branches, or anything complicated.

So "oneway=yes" solves all these cases quite simply. Avoid "oneway=-1" by the way, just use "oneway=yes" and reverse the direction of the way if it's wrong.

My two cents (from extensive work on bus routes, not hiking routes).

Although the oneway tag implies a legal restriction, and I doubt it is illegal to walk a hiking route in the 'wrong' direction.

I am gradually working my way along a local long distance hiking route and whilst I walk all the sections in order, I do not walk them all in the same direction as starting at a remote bus stop in the sticks is ok but not for finishing.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:51, Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Although the oneway tag implies a legal restriction, and I doubt it is illegal to walk a hiking route in the 'wrong' direction.

I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension bridge!, not a normal track, but it is posted as entrance only at this end & exit only at the other.



But oneway=yes is definitely the way to go (sorry, that just slipped out!), rather then clockwise.

Thanks

Graeme

I am gradually working my way along a local long distance hiking route and whilst I walk all the sections in order, I do not walk them all in the same direction as starting at a remote bus stop in the sticks is ok but not for finishing.

Phil (trigpoint)
_______________________________________________
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: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Warin
On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:51, Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Although the oneway tag implies a legal restriction, and I doubt it is illegal to walk a hiking route in the 'wrong' direction.

I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension bridge!, not a normal track, but it is posted as entrance only at this end & exit only at the other.

The overland track is one way during the normal working season, and it does have a number of resident rangers to enforce the rules. (~60 km)
https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=37728
The milford track has similar restrictions (~50 km)
https://www.doc.govt.nz/milfordtrack

There are probably more...

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Jmapb
On 3/12/2019 5:53 PM, Warin wrote:
On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension bridge!, not a normal track, but it is posted as entrance only at this end & exit only at the other.

The overland track is one way during the normal working season, and it does have a number of resident rangers to enforce the rules. (~60 km)
https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=37728
The milford track has similar restrictions (~50 km)
https://www.doc.govt.nz/milfordtrack

There are probably more...

Thanks both of you for the examples... I was trying to think of one but came up short. These show what oneway=yes on a footway is for.

Is there any point in considering a tag for oneways that are not enforced but generally done nonetheless? oneway=traditional, oneway=suggested, something like that? (Again, I know I've seen these, but I can't think of an example offhand.)

J



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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Warin
On 13/03/19 08:59, Jmapb wrote:
On 3/12/2019 5:53 PM, Warin wrote:
On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension bridge!, not a normal track, but it is posted as entrance only at this end & exit only at the other.

The overland track is one way during the normal walking season, and it does have a number of resident rangers to enforce the rules. (~60 km)
walking not working, though for some it is 'work'.
https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=37728
The milford track has similar restrictions (~50 km)
https://www.doc.govt.nz/milfordtrack

There are probably more...

Thanks both of you for the examples... I was trying to think of one but came up short. These show what oneway=yes on a footway is for.

Is there any point in considering a tag for oneways that are not enforced but generally done nonetheless? oneway=traditional, oneway=suggested, something like that? (Again, I know I've seen these, but I can't think of an example offhand.)


oneway=recommended? matches present use of  4wd=recommended

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Jmapb
On 3/12/2019 6:09 PM, Warin wrote:

> On 13/03/19 08:59, Jmapb wrote:
>>
>> Is there any point in considering a tag for oneways that are not
>> enforced but generally done nonetheless? oneway=traditional,
>> oneway=suggested, something like that? (Again, I know I've seen
>> these, but I can't think of an example offhand.)
>>
>
> oneway=recommended? matches present use of  4wd=recommended

I like it. Now I just have to remember where to put it.

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

voschix
Sorry, I am getting confused here (I am listening in as I frequently map bìcycle routes).
The "oneway" tag  would only make sense on a loop-shaped route. And only if there are only ways and no nodes like signposts ecc, and if there are no branches, and only if all members of the route were oneway ways. Very special case.
I normally handle oneway ways in a route which is bidirectional using the forward/backward roles on the ways concerned (as is also normal practice on bus routes around my part of the world). This is frequent for bicycles, but I would expect it to be very rare for pedestrians.
If you want to indicate the preferred direction of a walking route that is basically loop-shaped, a concept that is different from the legally binding oneway, then some kind of clockwise / anticlockwise tagging should be used.
If a hiking route contains parts which are oneway for pedestians then this should be tagged an all ways to which this applies with "oneway:foot=yes".



On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 23:19, Jmapb <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 3/12/2019 6:09 PM, Warin wrote:

> On 13/03/19 08:59, Jmapb wrote:
>>
>> Is there any point in considering a tag for oneways that are not
>> enforced but generally done nonetheless? oneway=traditional,
>> oneway=suggested, something like that? (Again, I know I've seen
>> these, but I can't think of an example offhand.)
>>
>
> oneway=recommended? matches present use of  4wd=recommended

I like it. Now I just have to remember where to put it.

_______________________________________________
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: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

s8evq
In reply to this post by Johnparis
There seems to be some confusion from my original email as to why even have clockwise/counterclockwise on a hiking route _relation_. The reason is simple: When you have a roundtrip signposted hiking route, you can't always do the hike in both directions. The signs are sometimes positioned so they are only visible when you do the hike in one specific direction. If you would do the hiking route in the other direction, you wouldn't see most of the signs.

In Belgium, we have many hundreds of these walking routes mapped:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Local_Walking_Routes_Flanders
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Local_Walking_Routes_Wallonie
most of these are roundtrip, and a lot with one specific direction only.



My question remains: how do you deal with this, and what about the statement currently in the wiki about this?



On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:50:37 -0700, Johnparis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> direction=clockwise/anticlockwise makes sense for a node (like a
> miniroundabout), not for a way
>
> on a way, the common usage is "oneway=yes" and make sure the way (which is
> by nature directional) is pointing the right direction.
>
> It doesn't make much sense for a hiking route to use "clockwise" (why the
> "cw" abbreviation???) or "anticlockwise" ("ccw" is presumably an
> abbreviation for the American English word "counterclockwise"). Because
> those terms only make sense if the route is a closed loop that doesn't
> self-intersect, have branches, or anything complicated.
>
> So "oneway=yes" solves all these cases quite simply. Avoid "oneway=-1" by
> the way, just use "oneway=yes" and reverse the direction of the way if it's
> wrong.
>
> My two cents (from extensive work on bus routes, not hiking routes).
>
> John
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM s8evq <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I have a question concerning the correct way to add the direction of
> > travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle relations.
> >
> >
> > I saw in the route=hiking wiki page that the usage of oneway=cw and
> > oneway=ccw has been added in 2017, with the word "proposal: " in front.
> >
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dhiking&diff=prev&oldid=1453761
> >
> > Since then, this tag has not been used that much:
> > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=cw (4 times)
> > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/oneway=ccw (6 times)
> >
> >
> > I see there is also the tag "direction=" with a lot more usage. On
> > mini-roundabouts (as documented in the wiki
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction#Clockwise_and_anticlockwise),
> > but sometimes even on route=foot, route=hiking and route=bicycle (not
> > documented in the wiki)
> >
> > Could somebody clear this up, for a novice user like me? How to correctly
> > add the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle
> > relations? What is the status or meaning of this "proposal: " wording? And
> > what about using direction?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by voschix
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:06 PM Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I am getting confused here (I am listening in as I frequently map bìcycle routes).
> The "oneway" tag  would only make sense on a loop-shaped route. And only if there are only ways and no nodes like signposts ecc, and if there are no branches, and only if all members of the route were oneway ways. Very special case.
> I normally handle oneway ways in a route which is bidirectional using the forward/backward roles on the ways concerned (as is also normal practice on bus routes around my part of the world). This is frequent for bicycles, but I would expect it to be very rare for pedestrians.
> If you want to indicate the preferred direction of a walking route that is basically loop-shaped, a concept that is different from the legally binding oneway, then some kind of clockwise / anticlockwise tagging should be used.
> If a hiking route contains parts which are oneway for pedestians then this should be tagged an all ways to which this applies with "oneway:foot=yes".

I'm confused, too.

There is one walking route local to me that is a circular route, about
11 km, through a small nature preserve.  It's certainly lawful to go
an any of the ways in either direction, and there are surely lots of
people in the preserve who aren't following the route but just taking
a different walk.  But the route itself goes only one way, because
it's not waymarked in the opposite direction.

In my notes, the plan is:

    (1) Put oneway=yes on the route relation, not on the ways.
    (2) Add the ways to the route relation in their proper sequence.
    (3) Give the ways the 'forward' or 'backward' role according to
the direction that the waymarked route follows.

There isn't any 'clockwise' or 'counterclockwise'; the relation reads
from start to end, and indicates which way it runs on each way it
visits. The fact that the end node is the same as the start node is
enough to make it circular.

Or rather, that *was* the plan.  I'm copying this from my notes, and
before I got around to revising the tagging, the trail maintainers put
up waymarks in the anti-clockwise direction, so I no longer had to
work through what to do about one-way marking.

This style of tagging (a one-way route overlaid on two-way ways, or
vice versa) would even allow for the situation where a hiking route
would have a section that walks on a roadway against the direction of
traffic (add oneway:foot=no to the way, but include oneway in the
relation if needed).  Long-distance routes in the US frequently
include short sections of road walk, to borrow a bridge, or to visit a
village where everyone on a route stops to resupply anyway, or simply
because no right-of-way has been secured for the trail or no trail has
yet been constructed, so it's pretty common to have route=hiking
overlaid on a small piece of road.

I don't know what a routing engine might do in the face of this, but
frankly, the whole idea of using a routing engine to choose among
hiking paths strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.

(Memo to self: come spring,
https://www.nynjtc.org/news/victory-long-path-schoharie-section-trail-permanently-protected
https://www.nynjtc.org/news/everyday-efforts-protect-and-improve-long-path
and several other relocations need mapping!)

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

s8evq
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:16:46 -0400, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In my notes, the plan is:
>
>     (1) Put oneway=yes on the route relation, not on the ways.
>     (2) Add the ways to the route relation in their proper sequence.
>     (3) Give the ways the 'forward' or 'backward' role according to
> the direction that the waymarked route follows.

Thank you for the reply, Kevin. Using forward/backward roles on the members of the relation is also how I did it once on a route relation I added once: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8974019


 
> There isn't any 'clockwise' or 'counterclockwise'; the relation reads
> from start to end, and indicates which way it runs on each way it
> visits. The fact that the end node is the same as the start node is
> enough to make it circular.

Would this make you conclude that the sentence "proposal: It might be useful to indicate if the route is marked in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction, i.e. oneway=cw or oneway=ccw. " on the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking is not necessary, confusing and can be removed?

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Warin



Mar 12, 2019, 10:53 PM by [hidden email]:
On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:51, Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Although the oneway tag implies a legal restriction, and I doubt it is illegal to walk a hiking route in the 'wrong' direction.

I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension bridge!, not a normal track, but it is posted as entrance only at this end & exit only at the other.

The overland track is one way during the normal working season, and it does have a number of resident rangers to enforce the rules. (~60 km)
The milford track has similar restrictions (~50 km)

There are probably more...
Orla Perć in Poland - mapped as oneway=yes + highway=path



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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by s8evq


sent from a phone

> On 13. Mar 2019, at 00:31, s8evq <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> most of these are roundtrip


seems you are confusing “roundtrip” with “loop”, happened to me as well, until it was discussed here some time ago.

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 22:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> But oneway=yes is definitely the way to go (sorry, that just slipped out!), rather then clockwise.

I thought that oneway=yes doesn't apply to pedestrians. [1] Thus,
oneway=yes on a highway=path would only apply to cyclists and riders.

If pedestrians are also only allowed to walk in one direction, it
seems you need to add oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no.

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway#Interpretation_for_routing

Regards

Markus

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 13. Mar 2019, at 09:20, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> If pedestrians are also only allowed to walk in one direction, it
> seems you need to add oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no.


right, this is a typical situation around here: oneway pedestrian roads where the oneway applies only to vehicles, on other roads it is also clear that the oneway doesn’t apply to pedestrians.

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

s8evq
In reply to this post by voschix
> If you want to indicate the preferred direction of a walking route that is
> basically loop-shaped, a concept that is different from the legally binding
> oneway, then some kind of clockwise / anticlockwise tagging should be used.

Yes Volcker, this is what I'm after. It's about loop-shaped walking/hiking/cycling routes, that should only by done in one direction, because of way-marking and signposts.  (Most of the bicycle routes in this overpass query fall in that category https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GWB, quite a lot!)
I'm not talking about individual ways that are oneway restricted for pedestrians.


How to properly indicate the preferred direction of this kind of relation?

method (1) With proper forward / backward roles on the members of the relation? (as stated in the route=bicycle wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle and mentioned by Volcker Schmidt and Kevin Kenny)

method (2) By using the tag oneway=yes, (as stated on the route=hiking and route=foot wiki page  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot but it causing a lot of confusion here)

I have not seen anybody on this mailing list defend the usage of method (2). Can I ask the question: why it is in the wiki?

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Paul Allen
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:38, s8evq <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have not seen anybody on this mailing list defend the usage of method (2). Can I ask the question: why it is in the wiki?

Because somebody put it there.

Oh, you wanted the ultimate cause not the proximate cause.  The thing about the wiki is that
"because somebody put it there" may actually be the ultimate cause.  Something may appear
in the wiki for no reason other than the voices in somebody's head told that person to put it
there.

--
Paul


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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Kevin Kenny-3
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:47 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Something may appear
> in the wiki for no reason other than the voices in somebody's head told that person to put it
> there.

Moreover, because we as a community usually try to respect the work of
other mappers (as much as we bicker on this list), these things tend
to persist on the Wiki because nobody really wants to take the
confrontational act of silencing the voices in someone else's head.

And you're just envious because the voices won't talk to you!

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

Re: Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Paul Allen
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 16:27, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:

And you're just envious because the voices won't talk to you!

I really hate it when people can figure out my inner motivations. 

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1234