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

Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
Mon May 25 08:27:23 UTC 2020


Hi Mateusz,

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:11:04AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> > 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.

Correct - Thats my point.

> > 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.

Its not MY usecase - but we should take care not to mix up data people
are using TODAY - And Amazon Logistics is fixing stuff like that already
today as we broke it, or made it impossible to distinguish it.

A small and very vocal part of the German community proposes to tag
EVERY driveway - no matter if it has a gate or sign with access=private.
Somebody slipped stuff into the German access=private page which i
removed a while back as it had no consensus. Still some continue with
this practice and for me they break the delivery use-case and a lot of
other stuff (You cant to blind navigation to the front door as private
has to be honored)

You cant tell whether this access=private is okay to break, and the
other not.

> > 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)

Ah - Thats a different issue. In Germany the small group proposes to tag
EVERY driveway with access=private - mixing it up with private property.

So - when there is no sign, no chain, no gate - How do you verify the
intention of the owner that it is "out of bounds"? You cant. 
And for that breaks a pretty important rule of OSM that it must be
verifyable.


> > 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)

A driveway is not something which is per se "out of bounds" - At least
OSRM treats it a lot like "destination" e.g. increases the cost of
routing. This was my example - a service/driveway in OSRM acts a lot
like a destination, whereas the same with access=private is
inaccessible.

> > 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.

Right - thats my point. As soon as there is some visible intent of the
owner that the driveway is out of bounds - like a sign, chain, gate,
fence etc i am happy with taking this intent into OSM by using e.g.
access=private. Without such intent there is no need to put access
restrictions in place. Thats my case with "On the ground" and "Not every
driveway needs an access=private" - We want to have a visible and clear
intent verifyable by others that THIS driveway is not to be trespassed. 

And THEN Amazon Logistics, DHL, DPD can actually trust our values that
we correctly reflect intentions.

> > 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.

I am happy with that.

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/20200525/6db0636e/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the talk mailing list