<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jul 14, 2020, 13:17 by jmapb@gmx.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class="">On 7/14/2020 4:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
via Talk-us wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div>Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by <a href="mailto:jmapb@gmx.com" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">jmapb@gmx.com</a>:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;" class="tutanota_quote"><div>If there was reason to believe you needed explicit
permission to be on<br></div><div>that way, then access=private would be correct.<br></div></blockquote><div>I am unsure what is the best way to tag "explicit permission
not required,<br></div><div>implicit permission is required" case. (it is not a big
problem in Poland<br></div><div>where nearly all such roads will have a gate anyway, bumping
it <br></div><div>into access=private)<br></div></blockquote><p>I'm really not sure how to interpret "Implicit permission is
required." To my mind, if permission is implicit, it's not
required (access=permissive) and if permission is required, it's
not implicit (access=private.)<br></p></blockquote><div>You can go if you have a valid reason, even if not explicitly invited or permitted <br></div><div>("hello, I am a new neighbor").<br></div><div><br></div><div>You are now allowed if you have no valid reason ("I used this road to make shortcut" or<br></div><div>"hello, I am a creepy stalker" or "hello, I am an onbnoxious peddler")<br></div> </body>
</html>