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

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sun Sep 11 08:26:42 BST 2011


Interesting...where did you find that?  Kansas Cyclist seems to be under
a different impression.

On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 02:12 -0500, Toby Murray wrote:
> Re: Kansas
> 
> "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of
> the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the
> driver of a vehicle ..."
> 
> Toby
> 
> On Sep 9, 2011 10:00 PM, "Paul Johnson" <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> > 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).
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-------------- 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/20110911/9ea09688/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list