Re: [talk-ph] Request clarification on access restrictions

[Michael Fast]

Grab OSM, 

No problem. As to why I didn’t “correct” all of them? There are probably 
hundreds of subdivision roads with variant labelling throughout the Philippines 
;-) I’m not sure that I am willing to go through one by one and “correct” them 
:-) Especially as there is some current debate in this group about the proper 
labelling. My primary connection to this thread is the Pingkian 2 access gate. 
I decided to update the other ways because it was convenient. I suggest that 
since you guys are looking through these ways tagging potential “corrections," 
why not make the changes yourself? Not trying to be rude, just a question :-) 

My two cents on the debate regarding “correct” labelling of private roads in 
subdivisions. In most cases these roads are in fact private and it’s up to the 
various Homeowners Associations to set the rules for their own road uses. It’s 
almost impossible for someone to divine these Homeowner intentions without 
local knowledge. For example, one of the subdivisions you tagged in your post 
seems to have changing policies. They sell access stickers but don’t seem to 
enforce them past one or two months. How does one tag roads that are 
technically private but essentially public? It is a quandary indeed :-)

Michael


> On 21 Feb 2019, at 21:29, grab osm  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Michael for acknowledging and correcting 
> However, needed a quick clarification. Along with the edits made, there are 
> other segments which needs correction. 
> Way id's mentioned in our earlier email were examples id's. Just wanted to 
> check if there is any specific reason for not correcting all of them.
> 
> Basis the gate location, we understand access restrictions needs to be 
> assigned to following ways.
> way 129591536
> way 130957072
> way 130957057
> 
> Please suggest
> 
> Thanks,
> Grab Team.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:35 PM Michael Fast  > wrote:
> Grabteam,
> 
> Please see my comments below for clarification. 
> 
> Michael
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 20 Feb 2019, at 15:55, Erwin Olario  > wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Currently, many highways within gated subdivisions are tagged as private. It 
>> seems that the more appropriate tag is access=destination, where access 
>> rights are granted every time a guest is allowed in, and is the most likely 
>> case. access=permissive is not necessarily correct, where the visitor is 
>> assumed to have been given casual access, without asking further permission.
>> 
>> In summary, common access values for access for local roads:
>> private - access to owners only (e.g, household driveways)
>> destination - temporary access is given, until destination is reached 
>> (shared roads, in gated communities/subdivisions/estates)
>> permissive - nominally private, casual use are tolerated by the owners until 
>> revoked (e.g. private subdivisions, without guards or barriers)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:35 PM grab osm via talk-ph 
>> mailto:talk-ph@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>> Hi Team,
>> 
>> Request your help in clarifying a couple of questions related to access 
>> restrictions.
>> 
>> 1)**Incorrect segments assigned as access=private**
>> At this location, 14.6792514, 121.0568702, there is a gate with name(Gate to 
>> Pingki-an 2).
> 
> This is a gate to a footpath. In years past there was access here but the 
> neighbouring subdivision has since closed the gate. I have updated the 
> permission to “private.” I have also adjusted the gates position to make it 
> clearer that it affects the footpath and not the residential street. 
> 
>> Basis gate location and name, we assume segments to the north should be 
>> assigned as access=permissive basis poi's and surrounding landuse polygon 
>> names
>> Example way id's -
>> way 655215117
> Changed to “destination”
> 
>> way 655215119
> Changed to “destination”
> 
>> way 655215118
> Changed to “destination”
> 
>> way 129591536 
> This is a footpath or eskinita. Access is from the north via a network of 
> other footpaths or eskinita. 
> 
>> However, access restrictions are given to segments towards south
>> Example way id's -
>> way 28296648
> Changed to “destination”
> 
>> way 23172246
> Changed to “destination”
> 
>> way 23172447
> Changed to “destination”
>> 
>> 2)**Segments assigned as access=private should be changed to 
>> access=permissive**
>> Below mentioned example way id's are assigned as access=private, however 
>> basis the landuse residential polygons, we assume access should be changed 
>> to permissive.
>> Example way id's -
>> way 130960943
> Changed to “destination”
> 
>> way 22952874
> Changed to “destination”
> 
>> way 28296647
> Changed to “destination”
> 
>> way 22952900
> Changed to “destination”
>> 
>> Alternatively we have created an issue 
>>  in our github page.
>> Kindly take time to review and suggest. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> GrabTeam
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: [talk-ph] Request clarification on access restrictions

[Erwin Olario]

Eugene, that indeed is a use case here. We probably know of people who
could get us those stickers/passes that will let us pass through through
gated subdivisions, when technically, those are meant for their homeowners
or residents. Don't you have a pass down South, "Friendship Sticker",
that'll let you pass through several gated subdivisions? Are there still
subdivisions that require you to pay for a toll fee to pass through?

However, shouldn't that be a special case for the router they use? The
conventional case for the general public are those roads are inaccessible
for them, unless they have to see somebody in those subdivisions, and they
are authorized to be let in. And, if they are let in, they aren't allowed
to pass through - and is required to leave an ID card -, and have to leave
through the same gate.

FWIW, OsmAnd's built-in router will ask you if you want to ignore the
private access tag, and then prepare the routing options for you. Magic
Earth sometimes ignore the private access tag, depending on your vehicle.





On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 6:53 PM Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:56 PM Erwin Olario  wrote:
>
>> destination - temporary access is given, until destination is reached
>> (shared roads, in gated communities/subdivisions/estates)
>>
>
> I actually have a quibble with access=destination when tagged for roads
> inside gated communities. Technically, residents or those who otherwise
> have vehicular stickers can pass through the gated community if there are
> more than 1 exits. Given that there exists a sophisticated router software,
> a resident or sticker-holder should be able to pass through the gated
> community maybe to avoid traffic in external roads without needing to
> actually stop inside the gated community, which is what is implied by the
> "destination" access.
>
> An example of this case is the huge BF Homes Parañaque subdivision. Most
> residents and those who have stickers often pass through the subdivision to
> avoid traffic along Alabang-Zapote Road or Sucat Road. If you tag these
> roads as access=destination, a router would not route through the
> subdivision unless the destination is inside.
>
> ~Eugene
>
> --

/Erwin Olario

e: er...@ngnuity.xyz | v/m: https://t.me/GOwin | s: https://mstdn.io/@GOwin
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph