<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/12/2020 6:03 PM, Mike Thompson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALJoUksqe+a65H7pTkmywWE6vynMHPq_QVGPu+gPsVBtMNF4vg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb <<a
href="mailto:jmapb@gmx.com" moz-do-not-send="true">jmapb@gmx.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<div>> The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road
imported with access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave
the<br>
> tiger:reviewed=no tag until access can be confirmed, and
add a note or fixme. (It's also quite common to find driveways
<br>
> imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend to
remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed <br>
> private, since access=private will prevent routing to the
house at the end of the driveway, sometimes even ending the <br>
> route on a different residential road that's physically
closer to the house than the road the driveway's connected
to.)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALJoUksqe+a65H7pTkmywWE6vynMHPq_QVGPu+gPsVBtMNF4vg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I always thought that driveways to private residences and
private roads (whether gated or not) should be tagged as
access=private. Often these private roads are posted with a
sign that says something like "Private road, no trespassing",
or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only." <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mike<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>As I said, I tend to remove access=private if I DON'T see any
barrier or signed restriction during a survey. If I see see
"private" or "no trespassing" I certainly wouldn't. This is
consistent with OSM verifiability standards.<br>
</p>
<p>I feel the most appropriate default tag for driveways would be
access=destination, but since generally they are short dead ends
it rarely seems necessary. But there do seem to be many driveways
tagged access=private. Some from TIGER (which certainly can't be
trusted) and some from humans, sometimes using Facebook's RapiD.</p>
<p>Here's an example of how access=private on a driveway causes the
routing problem I'm talking about: <br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=41.9288%2C-74.0024%3B41.9157%2C-74.0290#map=16/41.9168/-74.0237&layers=N">https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=41.9288%2C-74.0024%3B41.9157%2C-74.0290#map=16/41.9168/-74.0237&layers=N</a></p>
<p>There's no access to the house at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602</a> (forgive the poor
building mapping, not mine! ;) from Linderman Avenue. The correct
is approach is from the driveway
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657</a> but that driveway was
marked as private by the mapper who added it (one of Amazon's paid
mappers, using RapiD.) The source list (always the same long list
of sources with the Amazon mappers) includes Bing Streetside but I
don't see any reason that this driveway should be marked private:</p>
<p><a
href="https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=fd2b22c5-aaed-46f5-8128-a64aaf15c84b&cp=41.91594~-74.029559&lvl=19&dir=106.782906&pi=-7.023267&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027">https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=fd2b22c5-aaed-46f5-8128-a64aaf15c84b&cp=41.91594~-74.029559&lvl=19&dir=106.782906&pi=-7.023267&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027</a></p>
<p>If I surveyed a location like this and deemed it appropriate to
remove the access=private tag from the driveway, I believe that
would benefit the map.</p>
<p>Jason<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>