[Talk-ca] Tourist attraction on private land

[Kevin Farrugia]

I agree, I think if it's changed to something "historic" it might drop in
prominence without needing to remove it.  Can it really be a tourist
attraction if it's not open to tourists?

-------
Kevin

On Fri., Jul. 9, 2021, 5:50 p.m. Justin Tracey, <j3tracey at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20210709/04d52f3a/attachment.htm>