[Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:
> (Trying once again to change this thread subject!)
> 
> I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.
> 
> To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the routing to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602> by drawing in the driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657> and then snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway private. Yes, a large company like Amazon (who paid for this driveway to be mapped, so we might presume it's mapped to their specifications) can implement their own router and treat the access=private tags more loosely, but that's no reason for them to be breaking routing for everyone else.
> 
> In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should ONLY be tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a restriction. And if the access restriction is not verifiable by survey, it's good to add a access:source=* or note=* so mappers like me won't assume the tag is outdated or erroneous.
> 
> And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question of service roads that lead to private enclaves within public lands. Often these roads are public access up to a certain point, and having that information correctly mapped is quite helpful. Many of these are imported from TIGER with access=private the whole way, and reclaiming as much of these as possible is certainly on my to-do list.
> 
> As far as what sign wording actually warrants access=private... "No Trespassing", "Keep Out", that sort of thing. I agree that simply seeing the word "private" does not equate to access=private, though in some situations it would incline me towards access=destination. I wasn't aware of ownership=private but I'll put it to use in the future.

Out of curiosity, I looked at the tagging of a neighborhood I know of which has privately owned roads (maintained by the homeowner’s association) but no gate blocking entry. There are signs indicating that the roads are “private” but that state road regulations are enforced. The access on those roads is currently tagged as access=permissive.

Thinking about it, that seems correct: The roads are privately owned. But you are free to access them unless or until the owner withdraws permission.

There are “gated communities” where you can’t get in unless you have a card key or speak with a gate keeper. Those should, I think, have access=private as you need explicit permission on each entry.

But for the case where the road is privately owned but the owner allows access without prior consent, access=permissive seems to be a good fit.

—Tod


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200713/2d9c1d2f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200713/2d9c1d2f/attachment-0001.sig>