[OSM-talk] Highway access on hospital grounds

Greg Troxel gdt at lexort.com
Mon Jul 5 21:59:44 UTC 2021

Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:

> sent from a phone
>> On 5 Jul 2021, at 18:45, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
>> Let's consider a shopping center (buildings, parkings), privately
>> owned, with shops that intend to have the public visit and buy things.
>> That's not access=yes, formally.  Really it fits our permissive
>> definition, but we tag it as yes, because it is really really rare to be
>> told to leave, unless you are doing something like trying to organize
>> workers into a union or sell stuff out of your car etc.   But if you are
>> just passing through it's ok in practice.
>> What we don't have is "access=well_behaving_public" which means that no
>> one has a *right* of acess, but that the entity in control intends to
>> broadly allow the public as long as they behave reasonably.  So far we
>> leave it access=yes and pretty much nothing bad happens.
> I am not sure if behaving well is sufficient. Sure, if you don’t
> behave well you’ll also be kicked out, but if you look like homeless
> and not interested or capable of buying something, chances are not bad
> that the private security will not let you in or ask you to leave when
> you sit down. IMHO it is important to make the distinction of actually
> public and customers welcome but not really public.

We were talking about access on ways for transit, and you are bringing
up inside/etc, so that's different - but also useful to discuss.

I agree that the tagging scheme should cover "acesss=customers" for
pretty much all ways, and the trouble is that is has to bind a way to a
set of places you might be a customer of.  Currently, this seems to be
usable on parking and entrances, but not ways.

Strictly, I see it as a bug to have access=yes anywhere that there isn't
a legal right of access.  However, it will take a lot of tagging clarity
and support in routers to let us move off of that.  Another example is a
trail in conservation land.  Around me, even if government property,
they can set rules that exclude people and do so, both at night always
and all the time after particularly bad storms before the trails are
patrolled for dangerous trees.  But other than that, you can go there.
so it's almost but not quite access=yes.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210705/303e4a60/attachment.sig>

More information about the talk mailing list