[Talk-us] Gated communities

[Evan Derickson]

I think there should be a new access tag for the "with permission only, but
you are likely to get it" case. Years ago OsmAnd tried to send me on a
"shortcut" through a military base while I was cycling. It turned out that
I could've used the road in question *if* I had contacted the base in
advance and gotten a recreation permit. For now that road is tagged as
access=private, but that doesn't tell the user that they can use it if they
plan ahead.

That is a little different from the case we have here, which seems to me
more like the difference between "access=private" and
"access=extra_private". Without creating new tags, I think the
access=private/destination distinction is the closest we can get to reality.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:32 AM Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> Mar 21, 2019, 4:11 PM by kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:01 AM Mateusz Konieczny
> <matkoniecz at tutanota.com> wrote:
>
> For start, "residents only" gate is for me clearly access=private.
>
> "manned main gate" - is access strongly restricted?
> If nearly everybody, including vehicles, is let in I would tag it
> access=yes.
> It would also mean that access=destination would be better than
> access=private
> for inner ways of community.
>
> If access is strongly filtered (entrance requires permission from resident
> or
> guard is likely to resuse) then I would tag both gates access=private.
> Though it means that these gates are again not distinguishable.
>
>
> In practice, for the gated communities that I'm familiar with, there's
> not that significant a difference between access=destination and
> access=private at the main gate from this standpoint. If you have
> business in the community - pretty much equivalent to 'your
> destination is inside the community' - you're extremely likely to have
> the permission of a resident or business owner inside the gates.
> Nevertheless, if you're not a resident with a key card, you're not
> going to get through the automated gates. So access=destination for
> the main gate is in theory no more permissive than access=private, but
> gives a router a strong indication that "here is the correct entrance
> for visitors."
>
> I agree that access=destination is also better than access=private for
> roads inside the gate that are usable by visitors. (access=private is
> appropriate for service ways that lead to residents-only parking and
> similar things.)
>
> AFAIK access=destination is not limited to "I have permission from someone
> within", it also covers things like "I want to leave promotional
> leaflets", or
> "I want to walk around".
>
> It is rather for "no thru traffic" / "local traffic only" than "with
> permission only".
>
> Though I have no idea how to distinguish
> "with permission only, you are likely to get it if you have a good reason"
> and
> "with permission only, to get it you need to be an owner of a flat"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-- 

--
Evan Derickson
(360) 402-6494
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20190321/3af71239/attachment-0001.html>