[Talk-us] access=private on driveways

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 14/07/2020 09.44, Alex Hennings wrote:
> Regarding:
>> a driveway to a house should not be tagged access=yes
>> because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen.  That is a complete
>> violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that
>> access should be yes.
> *Given our defaults, no access tag is equivalent> to that.*
> 
> You're saying *omitting* a tag violates *verifiability*. That.... doesn't
> compute. Requiring tags to be verifiable with evidence specifically means
> the opposite of that. But that might get us closer to the source of
> disagreement. You and I interpret a *missing* access tag differently. *You
> read a missing access tag to mean access=yes*. (Is there documentation to
> support that somewhere? or... why do you think that?)

That's how iD represents it.

There is, of course, a solution to this... propose a new value with the 
appropriate semantics.

The (possible) problem with having access implied by service=driveway is 
that a lot of access roads to stores/businesses/offices are also 
service=driveway... although I suppose you could argue these have the 
same semantics; you shouldn't be using them unless you're actually going 
to the location to which they provide access. (Which isn't to say that 
no one ever violates this...)

-- 
Matthew