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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jul 14, 2020, 13:17 by jmapb at gmx.com:

> On 7/14/2020 4:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny      via Talk-us wrote:
>
>>
>> Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by >> jmapb at gmx.com>> :
>>
>>> 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.)
>
>
You can go if you have a valid reason, even if not explicitly invited or permitted 
("hello, I am a new neighbor").

You are now allowed if you have no valid reason ("I used this road to make shortcut" or
"hello, I am a creepy stalker" or "hello, I am an onbnoxious peddler")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200714/fc902b10/attachment.htm>