[Talk-ca] Tourist attraction on private land

[Justin Tracey]

Well, if tourists can't legally go there, it seems like it isn't 
actually a tourist attraction, and at the very least, should probably be 
tagged as historic=* (=house?) instead. That at least has less 
implication of a publicly accessible location, since plenty of historic 
buildings are not public places; no idea if that'll satisfy the owner, 
though. Maybe the name could be moved to the description, to make it 
less visible (and possibly more accurate, since I'm guessing the 
building isn't literally named that, if it's not actually a public 
attraction). In any case, if it is left in, an access=private tag on the 
feature is definitely warranted.

  - Justin

On 2021-07-09 5:07 p.m., Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> the DWG has received a complaint about 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1834726456, mapped as "Al Capone's 
> Hideout" tourist attraction on Letterkenny Road, Quadeville, Ontario.
> 
> The complainant says that the fact of it being marked on the map leads 
> to trespassing, and would like to have it removed.
> 
> But clearly it exists, and seems to be a bona fide tourist attraction 
> (type "al capone hideout letterkenny" into your favourite search engine 
> - you'll find some mentions of tourists not allowed, other mentions of 
> driving your car up the hill).
> 
> Now if there were a path mapped that leads to the attraction I'd simply 
> mark that as private. But there isn't even a path. Marking the 
> attraction itself as private is something we could do, though it would 
> likely not have any noticeable effect on trespassing - since no 
> application would even process the access flag on a tourist attraction. 
> If I were to write a hiking app I would certainly assume that "it's a 
> tourist attraction so of course you can go there - why else would they 
> have given it the tourist attraction status?"
> 
> Any suggestions of how to deal with this? Should we remove it? Mark it 
> private? Draw the track and mark *that* private? (Problem is, due to 
> tree cover the track isn't even visible...)
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
>