<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/14/2020 7:44 AM, Greg Troxel
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:rmimu42xqva.fsf@s1.lexort.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Around me the norm is that residential driveways (98% of them) are not
signed no trespassing, but that it is considered reasonable to use them
if 1) you live there 2) you are delivering something 3) you are a guest
4) you are going there for some other reason widely considered legit,
like "I'm a new neightbor and saying hello".
It is not reasonable to just drive up them because you feel like it, get
out of your car, stand there for two minutes, get back in and leave.
That will typically result in someone calling the police. If it were
access=yes, like a real road, that would still be odd, but not
actionable.
So I don't think access=permissive is proper for residential driveways
unless there is good reason to believe that. It probably is a good fit
for private roads in neighborhoods that don't have a culture of no
trespassing signs where many people come and go.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I completely agree. Mappers should have a good and verifiable
reason to tag access=permissive on any road, and preferably they
should record what that reason is. I've seen situations where a
driveway could conceivably be tagged access=permissive, but it's
rare.
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:rmimu42xqva.fsf@s1.lexort.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As for access=private 'breaking' routing, this discussion feels very
much like tagging for the router, instead of tagging what is and fixing
the router. If you are driving someplace and you have permission, then
it should be expected that you can use access=private ways to get to
your destination. Humans konw this, and while most people wouldn't
randomly drive down other people's driveways, it's obvious that if you
are invited to a house it's ok to use their driveway.
So a router that does not allow use of access=private for a final
segment, by default, is broken.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Tagging for the router is definitely a cousin of tagging for the
renderer. But both the router and the renderer are useful for
maintaining map quality. If something breaks the default
openstreetmap.org map, it's worth some scrutiny. Same with
something that breaks OSRM.</p>
<p>And the full rule as I know it is "don't tag *incorrectly* for
the renderer." Ditto for the router. I would never suggest
removing a legitimate verifiable access=private tag just to make a
particular route work. But that doesn't mean that the router's
behavior can't influence tagging at all.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:rmimu42xqva.fsf@s1.lexort.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Suppose there is a house with a driveway that connects two roads with
the house in the middle, that's access=private. A router should not use
that segment unless the destination is on that property. That's why I
said that routers should allow a final segement of private, but not a
transition to private and a transition back.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the *exact* scenario that access=destination is designed
for. Routing software should allow a route to access=destination
ways, but never through them as a short cut.
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:rmimu42xqva.fsf@s1.lexort.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Residential driveways around me are tagged access=private. I think it's
wrong to change that.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>And I feel exactly the same about access=private as I do about
access=permissive: Mappers should have a good and verifiable
reason to tag access=private on any road, and preferably they
should record what that reason is.</p>
<p>If mappers (or importers) have decided by fiat that all driveways
should be access=private, I believe they've done a disservice to
the map and so removing that tag is probably correct. If they're
simply trying to encode unsigned local law or custom, that's
explicitly against the community best practices. If they're
pulling from a reliable imports-list-approved open data source or
tagging based on surveyed signage, well then, high-fives all
around.</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:rmimu42xqva.fsf@s1.lexort.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I am really just saing that a driveway to a house should not be tagged
access=yes because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen. That is a complete
violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that
access should be yes.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Agreed. Mappers should have a good and verifiable reason to tag
access=yes. But don't conflate the absence of an access tag with
an explicit access=yes, even if software treats them the same.<br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><tt>B) the owner expects the normal social customs to be followed, of use</tt><tt>
</tt><tt>only for invited guests, deliveries/etc. and actual neighborly visits,</tt><tt>
</tt><tt>and doesn't put a up a no trespassing sign because it's prickly, not</tt><tt>
</tt><tt>because they want random people doing random things ==> access=private</tt></pre>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>Here we disagree. I believe access=private means permission is
required to legally use the way. Implied permission by social
custom is not the same thing. And in the real world, a driveway
and a private road that requires permission are very different.
Those accustomed to ignoring the "part of your route is on private
roads" warning on their GPS because of access=private driveways
may find themselves in for a quite a shock when they're confronted
by an angry hunting club member on an access=private road through
the woods, where the public route would have taken 5 minutes
longer if they hadn't turned left an hour ago but is now it's a
2-hour detour.</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:rmimu42xqva.fsf@s1.lexort.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I can certainly see a case for "access=destination" for these driveways,
with semantics that IF you have a reason to go to the house, you may use
the driveway. </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I can also see the case for access=destination. It's definitely
valid in some cases, and it's closest to how I feel a driveway
should be interpreted by default. But my usual preference is to
omit unverifiable access tagging.</p>
<p>Jason<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>