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

[Greg Troxel]

A further issue we haven't talk about:

  How much detail is ok on residential property, from a privacy
  viewpoint?  Is mapping of "no trespassing signs" going too far?

We show structures, and we show driveways.  These don't feel invasive
given imagery.  They are very useful for navigation, particularly with
long driveways.   We don't map much else.

To me, marking individual driveways about whether they have a no
trespassing sign or not, is a bit much.  It feels a bit dangerous, in
terms of getting it wrong and expectations.  Yes, you can see them from
the road, but still.

I also don't think it's all that useful.  When you are going somewhere,
you need to pay attention, regardless of the map.  And you know why you
are going, and if you have some kind of permission, and we are not going
to automate that.

So to me, private_signed and private_unsigned, or whatever, are
extremely close to the same thing.  I see signed or not as a minor
detail, and I would prefer not to map it.  (But, I won't tell you not to
map it.)

I do object to a tagging scheme unless it has a tag appropriate for
unsigned residential driveways that is viewed as not-really-wrong for
driveways that happen to be signed.  I mean that in the sense that it
isn't objectionable, not that it can't be refined.  Sort of like
"building=yes" is not wrong but changing it to "building=barn" is
better.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200831/24a0427b/attachment.sig>