[Talk-us] Disney (was Re: access=destination vs access=private)

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Sat Sep 17 13:32:28 BST 2011


On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> So we could take the existing tags, where =customer is perhasp not
> existing, and have a hierarchy:
>
> access=yes
> access=destination
> access=permissive (no legal right, but not objected to)
> *access=customers
> access=private (no right, permission not granted to the public)
> access=no (hard to tell what this means - doesn't make sense)

I look at it this way:

public rights of way (including privately owned land on which a public
right of way is granted):
*access=yes (no legal restrictions)
*access=destination (no through traffic)
*access=no (traffic generally not allowed, e.g. "road closed")

These are all rights of way, but except for access=yes, there are
traffic laws barring at least some access.

private property with no right of way:
*access=permissive (private property, not a public right of way, but
the public regularly uses it without asking permission, there are no
signs barring free use, and the owner does not seem to object - I
would think most parking lots would fall under this)
*access=private (private property, and the owner has in some manner
marked the property as such, either with a barrier or some sort of
sign or marking)
**access=customers (private property, and the owner has in some manner
marked the property with a sign saying something similar to "customers
only" or a barrier/gate/guard meant to enforce the same; note that
this is actually a subset of access=private; also note that many but
not all instances of access=customers are probably really
access=customers,_employees,_or_by_invitation)

These access restrictions are not traffic laws.  A violation of them
is trespassing, with notice.

> The real question is what routers should do.  Probably the best that can
> be done is to put a high cost on access=destination and even higher on
> access_permission=private and note this on the results.  Typically you'd
> only be routed over those when going someplace where you have
> permission.

One major problem is that access=destination tags really should be
directional, as the signs that restrict traffic are generally
directional.  The access=destination tag typically applies when
*entering* the development or other area, but it typically doesn't
apply when *leaving* that area.  Another major problem is that the
legal definition of the signs themselves are sometimes ambiguous.
What constitutes "local traffic"?  What constitutes "thru traffic"?
Apparently this is highly jurisdiction specific.  Here in Florida,
according to that link which Nathan provided, the signs are apparently
legally meaningless.  I'd be tempted, when writing a router, to just
treat them equivalent to access=yes.



More information about the Talk-us mailing list