[Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:

> Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your
>> letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass
>> over your land to fulfil his legal duty.
> 
> Sure. But access=private has nothing to do with private ownership. See below.

They are different, but related. 

In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every
bit of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The
owner has an absolute right to determine who has right of access, except
for certain cases, like a Public Footpath or designated open access land
that falls under the "right to roam" legislation. A person's house and
driveway does not fall under these exceptions, so there is no right of
access, except with the landowner's permission. So here we have
"access=private". That does not mean you cannot knock on the door, or
deliver a parcel however; whether by so doing you are committing civil
trespass is not a priori clear - it depends on the circumstances;
modelling all these circumstances in OSM is an enormous challenge that I
don't think we are looking to solve here. 

Despite private ownership, the exceptions I mentioned (public highway,
open access) are "access=public" AKA "access=yes". It is illegal to
prevent access. 

Of course there are rules and limitations in all cases as to the type of
access: public footpaths are deemed to be ±1m wide and access is only
granted to pedestrians, not to motor vehicles for example. 

> I believe that there is a defence to trespass on the grounds of "custom"
> which IMHO would cover deliveries to your door, or someone needing
> emergency help, or door-to-door salesmen (all in the absence of explicit
> signing to the contrary of course). 
> 
> Well, explicit signing like "keep out" is what's currently being discussed.
> 
> Or places that may be unsigned, but still make it clear that by entering without permission, you break the law and may have to answer for it. Think of a closed gate or something like that; the details of what's lawful and what isn't vary by jurisdiction.
> 
> That's what access=private is being used for.

Of course definitions can vary by jurisdiction. In UK/NL (countries that
I happen to know well), even if the gate is open your presence on the
land may be unlawful, depending on your intent (but that doesn't mean
you can be prosecuted for anything). But a "keep out" sign does not
override legal right of access. The sign itself may not be legally
posted. Does the sign apply to a point ("forbidden to pass this sign"),
or to an area? What is the extent of the area? I have never seen an "end
of keep out" sign. 

> On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> For example, here are a few images of "keep out" signs. Now think of somebody making a package delivery. How are they supposed to determine whether "implicit" permission exists in their individual case or not? Is it different for some of these signs, or are they all the same in this regard?
> I expect a "keep out" sign would probably override implicit permission?
> Agreed.
> 
> Mateusz changed the wiki to say different. Clearly, consensus does not currently exist to support that change.
> 
> BTW, let me point out that choosing not to take legal action is not the same thing as giving permission.
> And assuming that no one will take legal action is not the same thing has having received permission.
> Which is exactly why a driveway is access=private. Maybe a delivery
> driver doesn't have "permission" as such, but he may have a reasonable
> justification to use your driveway.
> I think you're confusing access=private with ownership=private here.
> 
> This is an example of a typical access=private driveway:
> (8)  https://4.imimg.com/data4/OR/NG/MY-11485274/ms-gate-500x500.jpg
> 
> Note the strong gate and the intercom on the right pillar, which could be used to obtain permission to enter. A delivery driver would probably be expected to use that intercom, even if the gate happened to be open (again, the actual legality may vary by jurisdiction).
> 
> Most driveways have less imposing access restrictions in place. Many have no physical barriers or signs at all. They're still private ground, but with nothing to indicate restrictions to a visitor, it would not be unlawful to enter the driveway when visiting the house. Therefore, such driveways are _not_ access=private; perhaps they are access=destination or access=permissive, but as Flo pointed out, adding these tags to driveways in OSM isn't very useful.

You refer to a specific case - "when visiting the house". It would be
unlawful if you were just out for a stroll, without the intention of
visiting the house. Access=permissive would imply that it would be OK to
walk up the driveway to have a look around the garden, and that is not
the case. 

Access=destination is insufficiently specified IMHO, as sometimes the
restriction applies to an area with multiple roads, and sometimes it
doesn't. The extent of the restriction is not made clear by the data in
OSM except in the trivial case of a cul-de-sac which no router would use
as a through route anyway. In NL there are two categories of
access=destination: "bestemmingsverkeer" (basically, traffic for this
road) and "aantoonbare bestemming" (i.e. with a verifiable destination).
In the first case, a plausible explanation is enough, but in the second
case you may be asked to prove it, for example by phoning the person you
are going to visit or showing the package with an address in the
restricted area. We have no way of distinguishing between these types in
OSM because they are both just "access=destination". 

> Here's an example for such a situation:
> (9)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg
> 
> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting the use of the access=private tag here.

You are not allowed to enter it without a valid reason. That's private.
Just because the gate is open does not give you the right to enter. 

Maybe you are trying to say that driveways are "access=private" by
default, so explicitly tagging them like this is redundant?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200529/e541ff43/attachment.htm>