<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
28. Lipiec 2018 00:20 od <a href="mailto:graemefitz1@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">graemefitz1@gmail.com</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 28 July 2018 at 03:33, Mike H <<a href="mailto:1jgon6@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">1jgon6@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex ; border-left: 1px #ccc solid ; padding-left: 1ex"><div>service=driveway isn't just for residential driveways. It is also used for other driveways. Here is an example of a driveway to a church. <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/100946154" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/100946154</a> I would agree that residential driveways should probably be implied as access=private.</div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>But people are allowed to use your driveway in some circumstances eg tradesmen, couriers, family or friends coming to your house. I think that access=destination would still allow them to visit, but stop routers from sending other people up your garden path? :-)</div></div></div></div></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>access=destination excludes only transit traffic. For private driveways access=private is better,</p><p>as owner may grant access to whoever (s)he wishes and access is not assumed OK without <br /></p><p>permission from owner.</p><div><br /></div><div>Note that there are also cases of driveways accessible to public, I would not tag them as</div><div>access=private (typical in for example rural areas). <br /></div> </body>
</html>