[OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi Mateusz,

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:16:14PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> > For me its missing at least 2 points:
> >
> > - The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and
> >  verifyable.
> >
> Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction?
> 
> "visible assigned" is not limited to just traffic sign. For example driveway behind
> a gate can be tagged as access=private (except gates that can be opened by
> anybody or by all customers or something like that).

Correct. But a closed and locked gate have (in germany and most likely
in most jurisdications) a legal impact which would justify an
access=private. And thats verifiable that a gate exists and is closed
for the public. If the Bell and the Postbox is at the gate - Perfect
case for access=private.

> In some cases it is visibly assigned and verifiable, but sign may be a bit distant
> - for example access restrictions in nature reserves ("leaving signed trails is
> not acceptable") or zone traffic signs, with entrances signed "no access except residents".

But still in case of a zoned access restrictions i can look up the
boundarys and verify all entrys and exits to see if the zone is
valid and matches the signs.

> >From quick review I am unable to remember any actually existing
> access restriction that would not be taggable.
> 
> > - To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible.
> >
> Can you find a good example for that? I was unable to find one that
> would not be ridiculous, so despite of desire of including something
> like that I skipped it.

I have seen stuff like:

	access=no
	hgv=destination
	goods=destination
	motor_vehicle=destination
	vehicle=destination
	motorcycle=destination
	motorcar=destination
	foot=yes
	bicycle=yes

Thats simply ridiculous to tag stuff like that. I once wrote an filter
to find the longest list of restrictions and you might be astonished
what people construct in there. People sometimes think of the more
they mention the better. I think its the opposite - the smaller the
better.

> > For example the German forum fights (with me) for tagging all driveways
> > as access=private disregarding any signs of the will of the owner. So 
> > even you dont post additional signs or putting a gate on your
> > driveway the proposal is to tag everything access=private.
>
> At least in Poland it is 100% correct, except rare cases where
> any member of public is allowed to open such gate.

Okay - just a thought experiment to map the driveway/private into the 
space of the reality.

In OSM

- private -> "No one except some"
- permissive -> "All except some"

How do you expect your driveway to work, how do you expect way in a nuclear
power plant to work? Different isnt it? We both tag them private
following your examples.

In the NPP i expect NO ONE to walk there except people of the NPP with
their security background checks done, visitors to be escorted etc etc.

I'd expect my driveway to be permissive. Because i want some random
Postal Service to drive there, the Pizza Delivery, Friends, Family
and random visitors.

For me this is already included in service/driveway - nothing to do
there as its basically the same as destination in routing perspective
today. For the NPP private is perfectly valid.

> >  I dont think thats a good idea as it makes the driveway and the area
> > of the nuclear power plant indistinguishable.
>
> For access purposes this is correct, in both cases you need permission
> from owner to enter and in both cases routing into such POI
> should be capable of allowing to finish route using access=private ways
> (and warn user that it is happening).

At least thats very different in Germany. There is no such thing as
"Stand your ground" in the US legalese. As long as you dont show
clear intend of "out of bounds" e.g. fences, gates or signage
its not a federal offense to walk on private property. You may
still be sent away, ignoring THAT is a federal offense, but until
then there its no legal offense to step on private property.
(See §123 StGB - https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/123.html)

> >  So as a delivery
> > like Amazon Logistics, UPS, FedEx and Co you have to ignore
> > access=privates to be able to actually use your driveway,
> >
> Yep.

So we tag stuff people are assumed to ignore? We should fix tagging
to make it distinguishable.

> > which automatically makes them ignore the power plants service
> > as well.
> >
> And this way for routing for worker of power plant asking for a route 
> to a place of work will continue to work. Is there something missing
> that I do not see?
> 
> Is access=private supposed to be incorrect in either case?

Its indistinguishable - Thats the problem. A private on a driveway
is definitly something which is not verifyable in most cases,
whereas the gate in the NPP is. In case of the NPP its a physical
restriction, in case of the driveway its more of an emotional one.

You cant distinguish them as we tag them the same. You must treat them
pretty different if you are UPS - but cant distinguish them. 

I'd be happy to introduce a new tag for driveways -
"drivewayaccess=private" which makes it distinguishable to NPPs.

> > So IMHO the advice to tag EVERY driveway with access=private is a very
> > bad one.
> >
> Yes, driveways that are open to general public (shared driveway without gate or
> other restrictions) or to all customers (tourism attraction driveway) should not
> be tagged like a private driveway.

For me a service is by itself not for the general public as the service
article already states. Tagging it with driveway does make it even less
public. It will be not used as through road anyway.

So there is a difference between a driveway with and without any signs, gates or
fences. If not globally than at least for Germany.

So in case this is very different to Poland i would suggest removing the
driveway from the access examples alltogether and make it a local
issue.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff                                                 f at zz.de
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200524/ff2b5651/attachment.sig>