[Talk-us-massachusetts] access=restricted

[Jason Remillard]

Hi,

In Groton, we had 3 properties. 2 of them should of been tagged either yes,
or permissive, and the other one should be private. At least in Groton,
they are mistakes in the MassGIS data.

Jason

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
> Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:51:56 -0500
> > Jason Remillard <remillard.jason at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> the trails that don't have an access tag, but are on a parcel with
> >> access=restricted should be rendered as permissive or private.
> >
> > I think that ways on such parcels should have access=private/permissive
> > tag set, renderers are unable to guess whatever such ways should be
> > rendered as permissive or private
>
> In an ideal world, probably, but Jason's question is how a
> hiking-specific renderer should behave in the world we are in.
>
> >> Does anybody have any idea what "access=restricted" means?
> >
> > Have you tried asking in changeset discussion of import that introduced
> > this undocumented tag?
>
> That's really unlikely to get a truly useful answer.
>
> The current datalayer has access codes:
>
>   Y - Yes (open to public)
>   N - No (not open to public)
>   L - Limited (membership only)
>   X - Unknown
>
> I would suggest picking a few and figuring out their real status, and
> see if this code's meaning can be reconstructed.
>
> I would tend to private.  permissive is more of an affirmative statement
> that the landowner is known not to object.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20180124/00c34fb2/attachment.html>