[Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sat Sep 10 05:00:17 BST 2011


On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:55 -0400, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz <peter at dobratz.us> wrote:
> >> >> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as
> >> >> access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private.
> >> >
> >> > I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all,
> >> > unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a
> >> > through street.  What if you are walking or on a bicycle?
> >>
> >> What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law:
> >>
> >> New Jersey 39:4-66.2 "Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles
> >> being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no
> >> person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public
> >> roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission
> >> of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or
> >> sign."
> >
> > That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting
> > through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging
> > is never bad).
> >
> >> Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be
> >> access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination?  I don't know.  I
> >> thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way.  And
> >> I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive
> >> as a through street anyway.  But maybe that's my
> >> learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias.
> >
> > I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance,
> > because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except
> > when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a
> > cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt
> > from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous
> > sidewalk that doesn't cross the street.
> 
> The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on
> public property, though.  That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though I
> can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does.

Not being familiar with the NJ situation, it is true in Oregon and
Oklahoma, but not in Kansas (as bicycles aren't considered vehicles in
that state for some reason).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20110909/f8f24749/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list