<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>On 7/13/2020 12:59 PM, Alex Hennings wrote:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>The <i>sole purpose</i> of routing is to get the user to
their destination without breaking any laws. These are also <i>specifically
my</i> <i>goals </i>when I'm using a router. Frequently
(in my rural area) getting to my destination requires using a
privately owned road. You might say "access=private" isn't a
problem because I can tell my router to ignore
"access=private". But I don't want to go down any roads that
say "Stay out" and have a gate, or a person brandishing a
rifle.</div>
<div>When every privately owned road is marked as
access=private, it is not possible for me to achieve both of
those goals (get there, don't break laws) at the same time. By
encouraging routers to ignore "access=private" you're
neutering real access restrictions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
So, you're either saying <i>don't worry about</i> breaking
laws, or <i>don't worry about</i> getting to your destination
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That is my argument <i>against access=private</i> on
privately owned roads. My argument <i>for ownership=private</i>
is to set a clear and visible precedent that private ownership
<i>has a tag</i>, which <i>is not the access tag.<br>
</i></div>
<div><br>
</div>
-Alex</blockquote>
(Trying once again to change this thread subject!)<br>
</p>
<p>I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.<br>
</p>
<p>To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing
the routing to the house
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602</a> by drawing in the
driveway <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657</a> and then
snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway
private. Yes, a large company like Amazon (who paid for this
driveway to be mapped, so we might presume it's mapped to their
specifications) can implement their own router and treat the
access=private tags more loosely, but that's no reason for them to
be breaking routing for everyone else.<br>
<br>
In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should
ONLY be tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a
restriction. And if the access restriction is not verifiable by
survey, it's good to add a access:source=* or note=* so mappers
like me won't assume the tag is outdated or erroneous.</p>
<p>And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question
of service roads that lead to private enclaves within public
lands. Often these roads are public access up to a certain point,
and having that information correctly mapped is quite helpful.
Many of these are imported from TIGER with access=private the
whole way, and reclaiming as much of these as possible is
certainly on my to-do list.</p>
As far as what sign wording actually warrants access=private... "No
Trespassing", "Keep Out", that sort of thing. I agree that simply
seeing the word "private" does not equate to access=private, though
in some situations it would incline me towards access=destination. I
wasn't aware of ownership=private but I'll put it to use in the
future.<br>
<p>Jason<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>