[OSM-talk] Private roads

[Stephen Gower]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:37:23PM +0100, Tom Chance wrote:
> 
> I think in those instances we should tag the roads with something else like
> "adopted=no".

  Sounds good.

> Let's keep "access=private" meaning "the public can't access this
> way".

  Legally, or physically? 
  
  Actually, that's more a question for the bike= variation on the
  access= key.  (Again in the UK,) The rights and prohibitions for
  cycling are a grey area legally, and I've seen lots of bike=no tags
  in OSM on footpaths where in reality there's not a "No Cycling"
  sign, and therefore cycling is probably allowed.  But equally, I've
  mapped some footpaths that it would be pretty impossible to get a
  bike down, but not put a bike=no tag because I assumed that's a
  legal No, not a physical No. However perhaps knowing the physical
  situation would be more helpful to end users of the data?

> Un-adopted roads can be rendered like any other road for standard maps.
> Private access ways need to be rendered (for reasons already discussed) but
> they also need to be clearly labelled as private, otherwise we might get in
> trouble with the owners and people who get lost :-)

  A red edge to the rendering, perhaps?

  s