[Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 31/08/2020 15.56, Kevin Broderick wrote:
> First, I'd like to point out that this discussion started off with the
> question of removing "access=private" from Amazon-logistics-mapped
> driveways. I still maintain that the mechanical edit would be a good thing,
> because the tagging as added is based on an assumption that
> service=driveway implies access=private, which (a) isn't 100% accurate, and
> (b) adds the appearance of more detail in the database without actually
> adding any value (i.e. if it is a safe assumption, then adding the tag is
> superfluous; if it isn't, then adding it is potentially misleading).
> 
> Second, I'd like to point out that there *are* driveways in New England
> that are actually public right-of-ways.

On a related note: I use service=driveway (for lack of anything better) 
for access ways to parking lots that don't have parking spaces (hence, 
not service=parking_aisle). These are likely *not* public right-of-ways 
(the lots themselves are usually "private"), but they are also certainly 
not access=private. So, no, service=driveway should *not* imply 
access=private. If anything, lacking other information, it should imply 
access=yes just like it does on any other way, and I suspect routing 
engines route accordingly.

This, BTW, is a large part of why we're having this conversation in the 
first place. The problem with overusing access=private is that we're 
effectively teaching routing engines to ignore that, which makes such 
tagging much less useful.

-- 
Matthew