[Tagging] Default access for service=driveway?

Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
Sun Dec 27 10:54:42 UTC 2020


On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 10:57:40AM +0100, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2020-12-27 10:42, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:16:30PM +0100, Colin Smale wrote: On 2020-12-23 11:54, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > 
> > Tagging access=no/private means NO, NEVER EVER. So all the food
> > delivery/postal service are not allowed to enter. Thats not the meaning
> > of a driveway. A driveway is a "semi public" road which is more like
> > "permissive" than of "no/private". You are not handing out permissions
> > in advance but you may decide to send people of your property. 
> > access=private does not mean NO, NEVER EVER. It means you need
> > individual permission. This permission can be explicit (like a letter of
> 
> >From an automated, computer type of usage its no - Because the machine
> e.g. your routing engine can not know for which of the road snippets
> you have an individual permission. So routing engines need to treat
> private as no. 
> 
> I have to disagree here. It is perfectly possible to create a routing
> engine that has a list of permits in its profile. If routers can avoid

A list of permits for every highway snippet in the osm database? As
thats what we are talking about. And a UI which permits users to edit
this?

> both static and dynamic hinderances such as ferries, toll roads,
> environmental zones, road works, low bridges and diversions, it is
> possible for them to maintain a list of permits/waivers for such
> restrictions. Do you have a green environmental sticker? If yes, then I
> will route you down here, otherwise we will go the long way. In the case
> of a driveway, all it would take is a popup asking "Destination is on a
> private road. Accept?" 

But that treats private as "access=destination" which is as broken as
treating it as no. 

IMHO a service/driveway is enough - It should be treated as destination
which it currently is (By increasing cost or decreasing speed). There is no
need to invent or guess additional tags for access permissions which are
not explicitly posted. Doing so (Inventing access tags) makes it indistinguishable
from roads which REALLY signpost these restrictions.

> But of course the router needs to be able to know when to show this
> popup. I would expect highway=*, access=private to be enough. But
> access=no is just a no-go for a router.

As is private right now.

osrm car profile - All of these are basically no-gos and there is a valid
reason to do so. There is no way to maintain individual permission sets
for all possible highway snippets.

    access_tag_blacklist = Set {
      'no',
      'agricultural',
      'forestry',
      'emergency',
      'psv',
      'customers',
      'private',
      'delivery',
      'destination'
    },

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff                                                 f at zz.de
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201227/bf731b1f/attachment.sig>


More information about the Tagging mailing list