[Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
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):
> 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
> 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