Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
Dear list Im tired and muddled. I think Sebastian posted swapped the 2 issues when he posted, sorry if its my mistake Quoting fors...@ozonline.com.au: Hi Sebastian A quick reply now, its late, and maybe more considered tomorrow its tagged highway=track I can see no "access all=yes" so nothing is being asserted about the access that suits me for now as I know nothing about the track I think I can see a gate or fence, not sure, 38ð11â²52â³S, 145ð8â²22â³E -38.1976644, 145.1393379 and maybe the other end 38ð12â²12â³S, 145ð8â²3â³E -38.2032271, 145.1342893 When I load a map file on my gps unit it will show this way as accessible for me to ride based on the OSM tagging. Unless there is an explicitly tag bike=no, private or similar then it?s will still think that I can legally ride on it. I don't know if you can legally ride on it or not. I doubt that through traffic is treated differently to local, you are probably either allowed in or not. I doubt bikes are treated differently I have replied privately because you have asked privately, this stuff is OK for the list and you would get some more and probably better ideas. in summary If there are gates then your gps problem is solved no bike= tag is called for, bikes are probably the same as cars tag it private if you know it is private, don't guess If your GPS wants to send you that way its not necessarily a fault with the map Are you happy to put this on the list? Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
Hi all, I see Sebastian has posted to the list now background to this: Way History: 679145843 about a year ago Sebastian had bicycle=no, highway=track as part of the DWG sanctioned revert I deleted the bicycle=no Hi Sebastian a bit more, If I wanted to add tags I would go on site have a look and do Mapillary photos. Unless there were already good photos. What I see now is a construction site at the south end with gates I think. Its a temporary construction track maybe and closed off now? No good photos at the north end. Going out on site and taking photos is time consuming but I think the map is maturing, its moved to needing quality rather than quantity. Also I want to back off slightly on my previous "tag it private if you know it is private, don't guess" You can guess a little bit but you still need to be fairly sure. Tony Yep no problem. I hadn?t realised I had replied privately. Will reply to the list. regards, Sebastian On 26 Mar 2022, at 9:39 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: ?Hi A quick reply now, its late, and maybe more considered tomorrow its tagged highway=track I can see no "access all=yes" so nothing is being asserted about the access that suits me for now as I know nothing about the track I think I can see a gate or fence, not sure, 38°11?52?S, 145°8?22?E -38.1976644, 145.1393379 and maybe the other end 38°12?12?S, 145°8?3?E -38.2032271, 145.1342893 When I load a map file on my gps unit it will show this way as accessible for me to ride based on the OSM tagging. Unless there is an explicitly tag bike=no, private or similar then it?s will still think that I can legally ride on it. I don't know if you can legally ride on it or not. I doubt that through traffic is treated differently to local, you are probably either allowed in or not. I doubt bikes are treated differently I have replied privately because you have asked privately, this stuff is OK for the list and you would get some more and probably better ideas. in summary If there are gates then your gps problem is solved no bike= tag is called for, bikes are probably the same as cars tag it private if you know it is private, don't guess If your GPS wants to send you that way its not necessarily a fault with the map Are you happy to put this on the list? Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
The access tag doesn't really capture if it's private property or not. You can have private property which is open to the public, and you can have public lands closed to the public. So you can't really set the access tag just on the basis of it being private land as it all depends how it's signed or any implicit access restrictions. On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 16:29, Sebastian Azagra Flores wrote: > In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access has > not been revoked by the owner? > In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private property > (as it is a retirement village) > I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to > use in lieu of destination. > > > > > regards, > > Sebastian > > On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote: > >> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit >> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the >> access=destination tag. >> >> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not >> conform? >> > > See also > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only > and the linked discussion thread. > > Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the > local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more > "access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something > signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset > comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then > I think it's reasonable to revert. > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
Hi Sebastian access=privateAccess is only with permission on an individual basis access=destinationTransit traffic forbidden access=permissive open to general traffic until such time as the owner revoke the permission My inclination is that if you are not sure, don't use the tag. Its OK to use less tags. It would be good to know which village you are referring to. In the case of Penguin Resort changeset#118193819 where I have just taken mapillary images, I think I would leave it at just highway=service and not use any of permissive, destination or private unless I had good evidence. Tony In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access has not been revoked by the owner? In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private property (as it is a retirement village) I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to use in lieu of destination. regards, Sebastian On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: ? On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote: Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the access=destination tag. Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not conform? See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only and the linked discussion thread. Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more "access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then I think it's reasonable to revert. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access has not been revoked by the owner? In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private property (as it is a retirement village) I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to use in lieu of destination. regards, Sebastian > On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote: >> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit >> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the >> access=destination tag. >> >> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not >> conform? > > See also > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only > and the linked discussion thread. > > Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the local > knowledge. Private property open to the public is more "access=permissive". > access=destination really should only be for something signed as not allowing > through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset comment to invite them here > to discuss further, if you don't hear back then I think it's reasonable to > revert. > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
Hi I have left a changeset comment alerting him to the talk-au discussion. Tony On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote: Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the access=destination tag. Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not conform? See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only and the linked discussion thread. Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more "access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then I think it's reasonable to revert. _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote: > Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit > traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the > access=destination tag. > > Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not > conform? > See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only and the linked discussion thread. Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more "access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then I think it's reasonable to revert. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 11:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Personally, yes, these & similar are the only times I would use that e.g. > https://goo.gl/maps/ACMTnn6gQJTLz5NF6 (& as always, for illustration > only!) > That sign looks like hgv=no. So no heavy goods vehicles, but anyone else can use it. It's not related to the destination access value. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 09:22, wrote: > > Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit > traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the > access=destination tag. > Personally, yes, these & similar are the only times I would use that e.g. https://goo.gl/maps/ACMTnn6gQJTLz5NF6 (& as always, for illustration only!) Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
oops, forgot to add these Multiple entrances with restricting signage https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.83471/145.03179 (Scotch College) Multiple entrances gated and signed (Museum, Carlton Gardens) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209893402 Multiple entrances gatedand signed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/753594786 (Selandra Rise Retirement Village) Hi all Up to now I have only questioned Sebastian (HighRouleur) on his information sources and reasoning on the use of access=destination First going to the wiki: "Transit traffic forbidden, all non-transit traffic to a given element allowed." But I am aware that the wiki does not trump common OSM usage so I would like to check with the community. It seems that its a nonsense to use access=destination on roads that have no connection to the rest of the world, how can you forbid what is impossible. Likewise its a nonsense for where there is one point of connection. Should the destination tag be removed from all these? Zero connections to the world https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040247 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040219 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148171270 one entrance https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/632504904 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/551195212 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/563380640 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48162492 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176876122 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117893671 Then there are networks that connect at two or more places to the world but there is no restrictive signage. I would remove the destination tag. Two entrances and no signs https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.99231/145.14903 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118193819 Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the access=destination tag. Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not conform? Thanks Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
Hi all Up to now I have only questioned Sebastian (HighRouleur) on his information sources and reasoning on the use of access=destination First going to the wiki: "Transit traffic forbidden, all non-transit traffic to a given element allowed." But I am aware that the wiki does not trump common OSM usage so I would like to check with the community. It seems that its a nonsense to use access=destination on roads that have no connection to the rest of the world, how can you forbid what is impossible. Likewise its a nonsense for where there is one point of connection. Should the destination tag be removed from all these? Zero connections to the world https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040247 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040219 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148171270 one entrance https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/632504904 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/551195212 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/563380640 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48162492 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176876122 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117893671 Then there are networks that connect at two or more places to the world but there is no restrictive signage. I would remove the destination tag. Two entrances and no signs https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.99231/145.14903 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118193819 Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the access=destination tag. Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not conform? Thanks Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
