[Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Greg Troxel]

Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> writes:

> On 2015-10-03 07:45, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>
>> By removing access=private you would be removing a valuable piece of
>> information. Maybe the community can come up with a better tag, but we
>> should not just delete the "private" tag.
>
> How do people here feel about using access=destination on driveways
> that aren't posted? It more or less captures "who is allowed", if not
> "who owns the road". The tag is designed for streets posted with "no
> through traffic" signs, but that's pretty much what's been described
> in this thread.

That would be wrong.    Driveways on private property are access=private
because essentially no one has a right of access.  access=yes is about
having a legal right of use, seaprately from being granted permission.
access=destination is about having a legal right of use, as long as one
is traveling to someplace reachable by the way.  Using a driveway to get
to a house or business when one is going there is normal, because
there's an implied permission to be at the destination.  But it's still
permission, not a legal right.

Arguably driveways in shopping malls and other busy place should be
access=permissive.  I tend to not tag those and to tag the parking lots
access=customers.  That is a little funny, becuase there is no right of
access, but that seems to be how we encode "permission is granted to
customers to park".


What's wrong with the private tag?  Is the only objection that it shows
up pink on the map?  That's a clue that the rendering is wrong, not the
tag.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20151003/f199d930/attachment.sig>