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

[Kevin Broderick]

First, I'd like to point out that this discussion started off with the
question of removing "access=private" from Amazon-logistics-mapped
driveways. I still maintain that the mechanical edit would be a good thing,
because the tagging as added is based on an assumption that
service=driveway implies access=private, which (a) isn't 100% accurate, and
(b) adds the appearance of more detail in the database without actually
adding any value (i.e. if it is a safe assumption, then adding the tag is
superfluous; if it isn't, then adding it is potentially misleading).

Second, I'd like to point out that there *are* driveways in New England
that are actually public right-of-ways.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19685143 is one such example; the
southernmost portion of the way is arguably service=driveway, except that
it is actually a public right-of-way that continues south,
eventually connecting to Lincoln Gap Road. While they are certainly the
exception and not the rule, the number of such setups in Vermont is
non-trivial due to the ancient roads laws there. There are probably some
similar cases in New Hampshire and possibly Maine, I believe, but I can't
cite any off the top of my head (the documentation of unmaintained
public-right-of-ways isn't as good as it is in Vermont, making things a bit
more murky).

Third, and back to the first point, I'd suggest that while this discussion
has teased out a lot of nuance about driveway access (and related social
norms and such), I don't think it's big stretch to say that while we don't
really have consensus on the implied access status for service=driveway in
a residential area, service=private isn't quite right (except when gated or
posted), which brings me back to my original thought: the mechanical edit
is a good thing to remove the appearance of greater certainty than we
actually have.

Fourth, related to the last question about whether or not it makes sense to
distinguish posted/not posted in the database: yes, knowing whether or not
driveways are posted and/or gated matters. Particularly when the
distinction between "minor, not-town-maintained road" and "driveway" is
murky on the ground (which is not uncommon in rural areas), knowing about
barriers and posted signs is rather helpful in route planning, especially
when not operating a motor vehicle (at least around here, state law
generally implies access=permissive in the absence of signage to the
contrary).

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:18 PM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Kevin Broderick
ktb at kevinbroderick.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200831/cfd9138c/attachment-0001.htm>