[talk-ph] Request clarification on access restrictions

[Michael Fast]

Grabteam,

Please see my comments below for clarification. 

Michael

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Feb 2019, at 15:55, Erwin Olario <govvin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Currently, many highways within gated subdivisions are tagged as private. It seems that the more appropriate tag is access=destination, where access rights are granted every time a guest is allowed in, and is the most likely case. access=permissive is not necessarily correct, where the visitor is assumed to have been given casual access, without asking further permission.
> 
> In summary, common access values for access for local roads:
> private - access to owners only (e.g, household driveways)
> destination - temporary access is given, until destination is reached (shared roads, in gated communities/subdivisions/estates)
> permissive - nominally private, casual use are tolerated by the owners until revoked (e.g. private subdivisions, without guards or barriers)
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:35 PM grab osm via talk-ph <talk-ph at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>> Hi Team,
>> 
>> Request your help in clarifying a couple of questions related to access restrictions.
>> 
>> 1)**Incorrect segments assigned as access=private**
>> At this location, 14.6792514, 121.0568702, there is a gate with name(Gate to Pingki-an 2).

This is a gate to a footpath. In years past there was access here but the neighbouring subdivision has since closed the gate. I have updated the permission to “private.” I have also adjusted the gates position to make it clearer that it affects the footpath and not the residential street. 

>> Basis gate location and name, we assume segments to the north should be assigned as access=permissive basis poi's and surrounding landuse polygon names
>> Example way id's -
>> way 655215117
Changed to “destination”

>> way 655215119
Changed to “destination”

>> way 655215118
Changed to “destination”

>> way 129591536 
This is a footpath or eskinita. Access is from the north via a network of other footpaths or eskinita. 

>> However, access restrictions are given to segments towards south
>> Example way id's -
>> way 28296648
Changed to “destination”

>> way 23172246
Changed to “destination”

>> way 23172447
Changed to “destination”
>> 
>> 2)**Segments assigned as access=private should be changed to access=permissive**
>> Below mentioned example way id's are assigned as access=private, however basis the landuse residential polygons, we assume access should be changed to permissive.
>> Example way id's -
>> way 130960943
Changed to “destination”

>> way 22952874
Changed to “destination”

>> way 28296647
Changed to “destination”

>> way 22952900
Changed to “destination”
>> 
>> Alternatively we have created an issue in our github page.
>> Kindly take time to review and suggest. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> GrabTeam
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
> -- 
> /Erwin Olario
> 
> e: erwin at ngnuity.xyz | v/m: https://t.me/GOwin | s: https://mstdn.io/@GOwin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20190220/8bec5e01/attachment-0001.html>