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

[Jmapb]

On 7/14/2020 4:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
>
> Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by jmapb at gmx.com:
>
>     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.
>
> access=destination mean "no transit", not "with valid reason".
>
> access=destination on driveway means "cannot be used by transit",
> not "can be used if owner presumably agrees".
>
> access=destination has the same meaning as access=yes on ways
> that are not usable for transit (for example driveway attached to
> a single road on one end and leading into house)

Yes, I believe I understand the distinction here. (Which is why I said
"closest" -- it's not exactly right.)

By my understanding, access=destination means "You may use this way if
this is your destination." There are three implications here:
1 - It's more permissive than access=private. You don't need to ask to
use this way.
2 - It's less permissive than access=yes/permissive. You *only* have
permission if this is your destination. (I said "a good reason" which is
not exactly the same thing, though close.)
3 - You may not traverse this way onto another way with different
access, ie, don't use it for a shortcut. (A common road sign for this in
the USA is "No Thru Traffic".)

When a dead end like a driveway is tagged with access=destination,
number 3 is irrelevant and from a routing point of view it's identical
to access=yes/permissive. But numbers 1 and 2 still apply, so from a
semantic point of view it's a little better IMO.

But as I said, I would not encourage anyone to start tagging all
driveways with access=destination. I believe it's usually a better fit
than access=private, but unless there's specific prohibitive signage I'd
recommend omitting access tags on driveways.

>     If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to be on
>     that way, then access=private would be correct.
>
> I am unsure what is the best way to tag "explicit permission not required,
> implicit permission is required" case. (it is not a big problem in Poland
> where nearly all such roads will have a gate anyway, bumping it
> into access=private)

I'm really not sure how to interpret "Implicit permission is required."
To my mind, if permission is implicit, it's not required
(access=permissive) and if permission is required, it's not implicit
(access=private.)

For a typical unsigned & ungated driveway in the USA, I'd describe the
implied access as "You may use this way to make a delivery, or to
immediately ring the doorbell and state your business."
Access=destination is the closest tag IMO, but I think just
service=driveway and no access tag is better.

Jason

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200714/15f428c3/attachment.htm>