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

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Sun Sep 11 22:48:44 BST 2011

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/2011 7:53 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> The "no thru traffic" sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction
>> specific.  In general there is no "letter of the law", as the law
>> generally does not mention such signs.
> You seem to be right (at least in Florida):
> http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C
> So the question is whether access=destination should be used where the sign
> exists but has no legal meaning.

I'd be tempted to mark such ways as access=no_thru_traffic, and let
the routers figure out what it means.  It seems a bit too much to ask
mappers to interpret legal statutes and precedents.

But really, I don't have a good answer.

> (As opposed to
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.394553,-81.549518&spn=0.0168,0.041199&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.394524,-81.549396&panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRg&cbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19
> which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.)

Enforceable as trespass, I assume.  But access=destination wouldn't be
accurate there.  Using access=destination implies that anyone may (in
fact, has a right to) use that way, if they need it to get to their
destination.  But the sign says that only guests, cast, and business
invitees may use the way.

As I commented on the wiki, I'd rather see access=restricted for these
types of situations. (In this case with access:restriction=guests,
cast, and business invitees only.)  Or access=customers, if you think
that tag is acceptable (but personally I'd rather see a very small
number of access tags).  Again, personally, I'd use access=private
before I'd use access=destination.

More information about the Talk-us mailing list