[talk-ph] Request clarification on access restrictions

Michael Fast seatsinc at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 00:50:17 UTC 2019


Grab OSM, 

No problem. As to why I didn’t “correct” all of them? There are probably hundreds of subdivision roads with variant labelling throughout the Philippines ;-) I’m not sure that I am willing to go through one by one and “correct” them :-) Especially as there is some current debate in this group about the proper labelling. My primary connection to this thread is the Pingkian 2 access gate. I decided to update the other ways because it was convenient. I suggest that since you guys are looking through these ways tagging potential “corrections," why not make the changes yourself? Not trying to be rude, just a question :-) 

My two cents on the debate regarding “correct” labelling of private roads in subdivisions. In most cases these roads are in fact private and it’s up to the various Homeowners Associations to set the rules for their own road uses. It’s almost impossible for someone to divine these Homeowner intentions without local knowledge. For example, one of the subdivisions you tagged in your post seems to have changing policies. They sell access stickers but don’t seem to enforce them past one or two months. How does one tag roads that are technically private but essentially public? It is a quandary indeed :-)

Michael


> On 21 Feb 2019, at 21:29, grab osm <grab.osm at globallogic.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Michael for acknowledging and correcting 
> However, needed a quick clarification. Along with the edits made, there are other segments which needs correction. 
> Way id's mentioned in our earlier email were examples id's. Just wanted to check if there is any specific reason for not correcting all of them.
> 
> Basis the gate location, we understand access restrictions needs to be assigned to following ways.
> way 129591536
> way 130957072
> way 130957057
> 
> Please suggest
> 
> Thanks,
> Grab Team.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:35 PM Michael Fast <seatsinc at gmail.com <mailto:seatsinc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/31> in our github page.
>> Kindly take time to review and suggest. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> GrabTeam
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ph at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph>
>> -- 
>> /Erwin Olario
>> 
>> e: erwin at ngnuity.xyz <mailto:erwin at ngnuity.xyz> | v/m: https://t.me/GOwin <https://t.me/GOwin> | s: https://mstdn.io/@GOwin <https://mstdn.io/@GOwin>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ph at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20190222/46681ffa/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the talk-ph mailing list