[Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote:
> "Alex Weech" writes:
>> Another thing I just thought of over breakfast, in New Hampshire by
>> default private land has public access, and landowners have to post
>> that trespassing is not allowed. It could be that that's a quirk of
>> this part of the world, and other places don't have a posting
>> requirement, which is why there's some cultural disconnect.
> 
> It is likely the same law has Mass, but I think you have the details of
> "public access" subtly wrong.  I think the law says:
> 
>    Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but this is
>    not a crime.
> 
>    If it is posted, or you have been told, then it is a crime.
> 
>  From that, one can not conclude that "by default private land has public
> access" in the OSM sense.  You can only conclude that "if you walk on it
> you are not committing a crime".  In OSM, access=yes means "the public
> has a legally-enshrined right of access", so not only can you go there,
> but other people cannot tell you not to go there.  This notion of a
> right is foundational to access=yes.
> 
> I agree we need a new tag.  As I see it
> 
>    access=yes
> 
>      legally-enshrined right of access, like a public street.  (Also used
>      for private conservation land where the landowner invites the
>      public, even though technically they could change the rules.)
>      Perhaps shopping centers, even though not a right, it's close in
>      practice.  Essentially always in truly public places.
> 
>    access=permissive
> 
>      no *right* of access, but generally understood that the landowner
>      does not object to typical use.  Often on trails not near houses
>      that cross private land, but without an easement.  Basically can
>      only be added by a local because it is essentially never signed.
> 
>    access=private
> 
>      There is no right of access for random people.  There is no social
>      expectation that it is reasonable for people to go there for for
>      arbitrary purposes.  (For example, an actual neighbor coming to
>      introduce themself, etc. is ok.)  This is the default assumption for
>      driveways in New England - basically actual neighbors behaving in an
>      actual neighborly way that they wouldn't mind someone else doing at
>      their house is ok, deliveries ok, maybe gathering signatures for
>      ballot access ok, and pretty much anything else not ok.

*You* may see it this way. The rest of the community does not.

>    access=private
>    sign:no_trespassing=yes
> 
>      Further means there is a no trespassing sign.
> 
>    (we already have a way to map gates.)
> 
> What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked
> access=private on the map?  yes, driving on is usually technically not
> illegal, but unless you are going there because you were invited for
> have a reason they'd approve of, it's basically not ok.

The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood 
meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what 
you described above. I don't think it's reasonable to change that 
definition, as it would invalidate huge amounts of the map.

If access=destination is not acceptable, perhaps we need a new category.

-- 
Matthew