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

[Jmapb]

On 7/13/2020 4:09 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>
>> The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
>> in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house
>> without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
>> has business there.)
>
> ...this seems to be the definition of access=destination?

I'd say yes, that access=destination is closest to how I interpret most
driveways: you can walk/drive along the driveway if you have a good
reason, eg to make a delivery or an inquiry.

If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to be on
that way, then access=private would be correct. (And IMO someone
delivering to an address shouldn't automatically assume permission to
access a restricted way -- the ship-to address is not necessarily the
property of the person who requested the delivery.)

> Is that the recommended way to tag residential driveways?
And I would say no, that tagging all driveways access=destination would
violate the traditional OSM best practice of "Don't map your local
legislation unless it's actually signed" (or however it's phrased.)
Unless there's a sign or some other indication (mapper's head on a
pike?) that this particular driveway has different access rules than
you'd expect, best to omit the access tag.

>
>> I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a
>> road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination
>> is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and
>> then does so happily.
>
> My car does this, and doesn't even ask. It just warns me that "this
> route uses private roads". I generally assume that's talking about the
> final leg and ignore it.
>
>> I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of
>> 'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for
>> everyone' is a bit hyperbolic.
>
> Yup.

Fair cop, I should have said "breaking routing for others" not "breaking
routing for everyone." I'm quite glad to hear that OSMAnd deals
gracefully with this problem, because no matter how much I retag and
finger-wag it will always be with us.

> That said, it does seem like access=destination is more correct for
> ways that aren't explicitly access-restricted?
Agreed, but I feel that in most cases, especially for driveways, the
access tag is better omitted. And regardless, the armchair tagging of
driveways as access=private strikes me as an error.

Jason