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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

May 24, 2020, 23:57 by f at zz.de:

> 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.
>
So it is about a road that is without "no entry" signs, not marked 
as privately owned, without gate/chain etc?

Tagging it as access=private seems wrong.

> (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.
>
Depends on your usecase - for routing you may want to inrerpret
access=private on final approach differently.

It may be valuable info for example for a renderer.

But what you want to distinguish here?

"owner has locked gate but orders pizza often, will open gate for delivery" from
"owner has locked gate and never orders deliveries"?

I am probably missing something.

>> > 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
>
Why it is not verifiable?

(it may be a cultural difference, in Poland driveway with restricted 
access will have a gate or at least a sign, it is not a driveway with restricted
access otherwise)

> > 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.
>
I may be a bit unusual here but it is often not true for cyclists and hikers.
They often use serice roads (even driveway segments) that are not private, that is why 
distinguishing between driveway accessible to general public and
restricted one is important for me.

For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240494343#map=19/50.06452/19.92326
(driveway into an university area, signed as living_street is a part of alternative route for
cyclists allowing to skip dual carriageway with heavy trafffic)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174699639#map=19/49.26939/19.98083
service road (correctly tagged) carrying hiking trails and almost
certainly incorrectly tagged as inaccessible for pedestrians
( https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2205168 ).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/714080089#map=19/49.28399/20.00194
correctly tagged driveway, serving as public wheelchair accessible path
toward major tourism attraction (correctly tagged as without access
restrictions
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplica_Naj%C5%9Bwi%C4%99tszego_Serca_Jezusa_w_Jaszczur%C3%B3wce#/media/Plik:Kaplica_Jaszczurowka.jpg)


> So there is a difference between a driveway with and without any signs, gates or
> fences. If not globally than at least for Germany.
>
Yes, also in Poland there are driveways without any access restrictions
and ones that are restricted to private access and some with more exotic ones.

>
> 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.
>
Is it still needed? I made some edits to try to avoid confusion of 
"private road, as in restricted access" and "private road, as in privately owned" 
as privately owned roads may be open and publicly owned may be restricted.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200525/8a14232a/attachment.htm>