[Talk-GB] Front paths

Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz
Wed Dec 30 11:03:59 UTC 2020

I agree with Jon that access=private is the only practical option for 
front paths and that access=delivery can be useful but NOT in the case 
under discussion.

I live most of the time in Sweden and the network of non-public track 
and paths segments to get to a rural property can be complex, my own 
included.  In testing for a friend developing a real-life router the 
solution is very simple:

public/destination -> private -> End-point.
public/destination -> private -> private -> private -> End-point.
Yes allowed routes, and works for delivery vans. Equally valid for 
visitors, emergency vehicles etc.

public/destination -> private -> public/destination -> private -> 
No, and stops delivery vans taking short cuts.   Routing for emergency 
vehicles could simply ignore this constraint or add al lower penalty.


*access=private *
with "private" defined as: "This way crosses private land and has no 
explicit public rights attached to it. The land owner or their 
representatives may have the right to refuse or block access or require 
that you leave".

As Jon suggests,  means that if your front path connects through to the 
back street, then you are allowing folks to cut through your garden to 
get to the back street. Not what most people want for a front path.

Yes for the special case of supermarkets and factories with "Deliveries 
Only" service roads implicit or explicit.  No for private houses, not 
practical. If "private" were to explicitly imply that one should not be 
here at all, then you'd really need 
... OK, I making a reductio ad absurdum argument, but a valid one I think.


On 2020-12-29 22:03, Jon Pennycook wrote:
> Access=delivery seems better.
> Definitely not access=yes ("The public has an official, 
> legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way.")
> Alternatively, we assume that "private" includes delivery and 
> emergency, and leave access=delivery for ways that are only used for 
> deliveries, eg for shops or factories.
> Anything else implies that the general public could use my path to 
> reach one of my neighbours, which is not something I have allowed them 
> to do. I tend to take "destination" to mean that you could get away 
> with using the way as a through route - the wiki says "i.e., local 
> traffic only" (local traffic isn't welcome on my driveway or path!)
> Jon
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2020, 20:36 Martin Wynne, <martin at 85a.uk 
> <mailto:martin at 85a.uk>> wrote:
>     On 29/12/2020 19:22, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>      > The whole access= is indeed interesting.
>     As far as I can see there are only 2 possible values:
>     access=yes
>     access=destination
>     Even where a road has a big Private, Keep Out, No Visitors sign, it
>     would rarely exclude the postman or an Amazon delivery van.
>     Or a doctor or an ambulance or a fire engine. Not to mention the
>     police.
>     Or an Ordnance Survey surveyor?
>     Do we have an access=tradesmans_entrance option?
>     Martin.
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-GB mailing list
>     Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201230/75c57258/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list