Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/12/2011 7:17 PM, Anthony wrote: The fact that the land is owned by Walt Disney Parks does not preclude the fact that they have granted a right of way through it. According to Orange County property records, the 65.13 acres of land is owned by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. However, 11 acres of it is under the land use "right of way" (the rest is wasteland or submerged). http://beta.ocpafl.org/searches/ParcelSearch.aspx?pid=28241700017 I don't know how this figure was calculated. But I've looked at records from Disney's beginning to the present day and no easement was ever granted to the public for this road. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/11/2011 6:12 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II >> wrote: >>> >>> (As opposed to >>> >>> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.394553,-81.549518&spn=0.0168,0.041199&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.394524,-81.549396&panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRg&cbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 >>> which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) >> >> Hmm, I just looked at the Orlando Property Appraisers map, and it >> looks to me like it's right of way. What makes you say it is private >> property? >> > You must be looking at the wrong road. Except for the intersection with > Bonnet Creek Parkway and the crossing of Canal C-1, Vista Boulevard is > entirely on land owned by WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U S INC. The fact that the land is owned by Walt Disney Parks does not preclude the fact that they have granted a right of way through it. According to Orange County property records, the 65.13 acres of land is owned by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. However, 11 acres of it is under the land use "right of way" (the rest is wasteland or submerged). http://beta.ocpafl.org/searches/ParcelSearch.aspx?pid=28241700017 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/11/2011 6:12 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: (As opposed to http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.394553,-81.549518&spn=0.0168,0.041199&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.394524,-81.549396&panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRg&cbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) Hmm, I just looked at the Orlando Property Appraisers map, and it looks to me like it's right of way. What makes you say it is private property? You must be looking at the wrong road. Except for the intersection with Bonnet Creek Parkway and the crossing of Canal C-1, Vista Boulevard is entirely on land owned by WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U S INC. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > (As opposed to > http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.394553,-81.549518&spn=0.0168,0.041199&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.394524,-81.549396&panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRg&cbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 > which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) Hmm, I just looked at the Orlando Property Appraisers map, and it looks to me like it's right of way. What makes you say it is private property? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/11/2011 7:53 AM, Anthony wrote: >> >> The "no thru traffic" sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction >> specific. In general there is no "letter of the law", as the law >> generally does not mention such signs. > > You seem to be right (at least in Florida): > http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C > > So the question is whether access=destination should be used where the sign > exists but has no legal meaning. I'd be tempted to mark such ways as access=no_thru_traffic, and let the routers figure out what it means. It seems a bit too much to ask mappers to interpret legal statutes and precedents. But really, I don't have a good answer. > (As opposed to > http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.394553,-81.549518&spn=0.0168,0.041199&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.394524,-81.549396&panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRg&cbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 > which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) Enforceable as trespass, I assume. But access=destination wouldn't be accurate there. Using access=destination implies that anyone may (in fact, has a right to) use that way, if they need it to get to their destination. But the sign says that only guests, cast, and business invitees may use the way. As I commented on the wiki, I'd rather see access=restricted for these types of situations. (In this case with access:restriction=guests, cast, and business invitees only.) Or access=customers, if you think that tag is acceptable (but personally I'd rather see a very small number of access tags). Again, personally, I'd use access=private before I'd use access=destination. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/11/2011 7:53 AM, Anthony wrote: The "no thru traffic" sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction specific. In general there is no "letter of the law", as the law generally does not mention such signs. You seem to be right (at least in Florida): http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C So the question is whether access=destination should be used where the sign exists but has no legal meaning. (As opposed to http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.394553,-81.549518&spn=0.0168,0.041199&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.394524,-81.549396&panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRg&cbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 04:34 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > On 9/11/2011 4:25 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > Beaverton, Oregon, in all their wisdom, likes to post roads as > "DEAD > > > END" or "NO OUTLET" when it clearly does have an outlet, just not > for > > > motor vehicles. > > > > I'm not sure what this has to do with access tags, since these are > > advisory (yellow) signs. Only a regulatory (white) "no thru traffic" > > > would be access=destination. > > It's an example of a situation where if you're on a bicycle it might > be > better to pay attention to the GPS or the directions given than to > take > a sign that indicates there's no physical way out except the way you > came as being accurate. Sometimes the "Dead End" sign is out of date. In one case I know of, here in Nashville, TN, a pair of formerly dead-end streets were connected together to make a through street. The city promptly took down one of the "Dead End" signs, but left the other one in place for over a decade before finally removing it. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/11/2011 3:12 AM, Toby Murray wrote: >> >> Re: Kansas >> >> "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of >> the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the >> driver of a vehicle ..." > > So you turn into the driveway and switch to pedestrian mode at the instant > you cross the sidewalk, and are therefore no longer upon a roadway :) > > Seriously, I'd say this is probably a very gray area of the law. I'm sure > there are many streets that are marked 'no thru traffic' but are inventoried > if not signed as parts of a medium-distance bike route. So a bike router is > probably better-off ignoring access=destination in general, unless the user > specifies that he wants to follow the letter of the law. The "no thru traffic" sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction specific. In general there is no "letter of the law", as the law generally does not mention such signs. In any case, if access=destination only applies to motor vehicles, it should be motor_vehicle=destination. If it only applies to vehicles, it should be vehicle=destination. Routers may want to cheat and assume access=destination means [motor_]vehicle=destination, but if you're going to tag it, you should tag it correctly. As for whether "no thru traffic" is even supposed to be meant to apply to bicycles, I don't know. Personally I'd certainly fight any ticket I received for failure to obey such a sign. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 04:34 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/11/2011 4:25 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Beaverton, Oregon, in all their wisdom, likes to post roads as "DEAD > > END" or "NO OUTLET" when it clearly does have an outlet, just not for > > motor vehicles. > > I'm not sure what this has to do with access tags, since these are > advisory (yellow) signs. Only a regulatory (white) "no thru traffic" > would be access=destination. It's an example of a situation where if you're on a bicycle it might be better to pay attention to the GPS or the directions given than to take a sign that indicates there's no physical way out except the way you came as being accurate. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/11/2011 4:25 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: Beaverton, Oregon, in all their wisdom, likes to post roads as "DEAD END" or "NO OUTLET" when it clearly does have an outlet, just not for motor vehicles. I'm not sure what this has to do with access tags, since these are advisory (yellow) signs. Only a regulatory (white) "no thru traffic" would be access=destination. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 03:33 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/11/2011 3:12 AM, Toby Murray wrote: > > Re: Kansas > > > > "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of > > the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the > > driver of a vehicle ..." > > So you turn into the driveway and switch to pedestrian mode at the > instant you cross the sidewalk, and are therefore no longer upon a > roadway :) > > Seriously, I'd say this is probably a very gray area of the law. I'm > sure there are many streets that are marked 'no thru traffic' but are > inventoried if not signed as parts of a medium-distance bike route. So a > bike router is probably better-off ignoring access=destination in > general, unless the user specifies that he wants to follow the letter of > the law. Beaverton, Oregon, in all their wisdom, likes to post roads as "DEAD END" or "NO OUTLET" when it clearly does have an outlet, just not for motor vehicles. It's rather annoying if you're not closely familiar with a part of town and trying to follow someone else's directions, since NO OUTLET means you're about to go enter a pocket neighborhood of nothing but dead end streets, and DEAD END terminates, not always with a cul-de-sac. It's one of the many little things that it so I can't wait to GTFO of Oregon again. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/11/2011 3:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 02:12 -0500, Toby Murray wrote: Re: Kansas "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle ..." Interesting...where did you find that? Kansas Cyclist seems to be under a different impression. http://www.kansascyclist.com/kansas_cycling_laws.html ? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/11/2011 3:12 AM, Toby Murray wrote: Re: Kansas "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle ..." So you turn into the driveway and switch to pedestrian mode at the instant you cross the sidewalk, and are therefore no longer upon a roadway :) Seriously, I'd say this is probably a very gray area of the law. I'm sure there are many streets that are marked 'no thru traffic' but are inventoried if not signed as parts of a medium-distance bike route. So a bike router is probably better-off ignoring access=destination in general, unless the user specifies that he wants to follow the letter of the law. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
Interesting...where did you find that? Kansas Cyclist seems to be under a different impression. On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 02:12 -0500, Toby Murray wrote: > Re: Kansas > > "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of > the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the > driver of a vehicle ..." > > Toby > > On Sep 9, 2011 10:00 PM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:55 -0400, Anthony wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson > wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz > wrote: > >> >> >> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment > complexes as > >> >> >> access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not > usually private. > >> >> > > >> >> > I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at > all, > >> >> > unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as > a > >> >> > through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? > >> >> > >> >> What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: > >> >> > >> >> New Jersey 39:4-66.2 "Except for emergency vehicles and motor > vehicles > >> >> being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no > >> >> person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except > public > >> >> roads or highways, or private property, with or without the > permission > >> >> of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control > signal or > >> >> sign." > >> > > >> > That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid > cutting > >> > through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit > tagging > >> > is never bad). > >> > > >> >> Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop > sign, be > >> >> access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I > >> >> thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of > way. And > >> >> I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an > access=permissive > >> >> as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my > >> >> learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. > >> > > >> > I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a > circumstance, > >> > because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles > except > >> > when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively > making a > >> > cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally > exempt > >> > from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a > contiguous > >> > sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. > >> > >> The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on > >> public property, though. That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though > I > >> can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does. > > > > Not being familiar with the NJ situation, it is true in Oregon and > > Oklahoma, but not in Kansas (as bicycles aren't considered vehicles > in > > that state for some reason). > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
Re: Kansas "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle ..." Toby On Sep 9, 2011 10:00 PM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:55 -0400, Anthony wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: >> >> >> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as >> >> >> access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. >> >> > >> >> > I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, >> >> > unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a >> >> > through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? >> >> >> >> What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: >> >> >> >> New Jersey 39:4-66.2 "Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles >> >> being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no >> >> person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public >> >> roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission >> >> of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or >> >> sign." >> > >> > That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting >> > through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging >> > is never bad). >> > >> >> Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be >> >> access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I >> >> thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And >> >> I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive >> >> as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my >> >> learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. >> > >> > I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, >> > because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except >> > when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a >> > cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt >> > from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous >> > sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. >> >> The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on >> public property, though. That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though I >> can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does. > > Not being familiar with the NJ situation, it is true in Oregon and > Oklahoma, but not in Kansas (as bicycles aren't considered vehicles in > that state for some reason). > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/9/2011 7:36 PM, PJ Houser wrote: In OpenTripPlanner's case (http://opentripplanner.com/), if it is given a starting destination within an apartment complex tagged with access=private, the router will try to snap that location to the nearest permitted road, which in some cases, may be an irrelevant or disconnected road to the origin. But this also happens for a gated community, which is definitely access=private. I think Google handles it by routing you along it but warning you that you're starting or ending on a private road. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 00:02 -0400, Anthony wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Paul Johnson > wrote: >> > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:25 -0400, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser >> >> wrote: >> >> > Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes > as >> >> > access=destination or access=private? >> >> >> >> Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? >> > >> > At least in the states I've been in, in general it seems to be in a >> > commercial setting, it would be. In residential settings, these > ways >> > tend to be closed to everyone except visitors/clients of residents >> > (couriers, plumbers, pizza delivery, garbage removal, etc) that have >> > have been invited in, and trespassing charges can be pressed against >> > everyone else. >> >> Without warning? Where in the US can you be charged with trespass >> without any warning (no sign, no fence, no marked trees, no building, >> no verbal warning)? > > It's pretty rare for those things not to exist, visibly on the aerial > imagery even (given the commonality of fences), and it not being signed > in urban areas is rare. Ah, okay. Yeah, if there's a sign or a fence/gate, access=private is probably the way to go. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 00:02 -0400, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:25 -0400, Anthony wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser > >> wrote: > >> > Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as > >> > access=destination or access=private? > >> > >> Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? > > > > At least in the states I've been in, in general it seems to be in a > > commercial setting, it would be. In residential settings, these ways > > tend to be closed to everyone except visitors/clients of residents > > (couriers, plumbers, pizza delivery, garbage removal, etc) that have > > have been invited in, and trespassing charges can be pressed against > > everyone else. > > Without warning? Where in the US can you be charged with trespass > without any warning (no sign, no fence, no marked trees, no building, > no verbal warning)? It's pretty rare for those things not to exist, visibly on the aerial imagery even (given the commonality of fences), and it not being signed in urban areas is rare. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:25 -0400, Anthony wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser >> wrote: >> > Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as >> > access=destination or access=private? >> >> Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? > > At least in the states I've been in, in general it seems to be in a > commercial setting, it would be. In residential settings, these ways > tend to be closed to everyone except visitors/clients of residents > (couriers, plumbers, pizza delivery, garbage removal, etc) that have > have been invited in, and trespassing charges can be pressed against > everyone else. Without warning? Where in the US can you be charged with trespass without any warning (no sign, no fence, no marked trees, no building, no verbal warning)? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:55 -0400, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: > >> >> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as > >> >> access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually > >> >> private. > >> > > >> > I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, > >> > unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a > >> > through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? > >> > >> What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: > >> > >> New Jersey 39:4-66.2 "Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles > >> being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no > >> person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public > >> roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission > >> of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or > >> sign." > > > > That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting > > through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging > > is never bad). > > > >> Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be > >> access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I > >> thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And > >> I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive > >> as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my > >> learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. > > > > I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, > > because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except > > when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a > > cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt > > from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous > > sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. > > The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on > public property, though. That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though I > can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does. Not being familiar with the NJ situation, it is true in Oregon and Oklahoma, but not in Kansas (as bicycles aren't considered vehicles in that state for some reason). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: >> >> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as >> >> access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually >> >> private. >> > >> > I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, >> > unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a >> > through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? >> >> What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: >> >> New Jersey 39:4-66.2 "Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles >> being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no >> person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public >> roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission >> of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or >> sign." > > That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting > through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging > is never bad). > >> Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be >> access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I >> thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And >> I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive >> as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my >> learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. > > I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, > because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except > when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a > cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt > from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous > sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on public property, though. That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though I can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:25 -0400, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser > wrote: > > Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as > > access=destination or access=private? > > Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? At least in the states I've been in, in general it seems to be in a commercial setting, it would be. In residential settings, these ways tend to be closed to everyone except visitors/clients of residents (couriers, plumbers, pizza delivery, garbage removal, etc) that have have been invited in, and trespassing charges can be pressed against everyone else. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: > >> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as > >> access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually > >> private. > > > > I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, > > unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a > > through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? > > What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: > > New Jersey 39:4-66.2 "Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles > being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no > person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public > roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission > of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or > sign." That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging is never bad). > Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be > access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I > thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And > I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive > as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my > learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:00 -0400, Peter Dobratz wrote:
> I generally only put access=private on roads that explicitly say
> private on the sign. A lot of condo complexes around here have a sign
> on the driveway saying private property, no tresspassing, etc.
> Apartments complexes usually don't have such a sign.
That seems to be contrary to the norm in Oregon and especially Oklahoma.
In states that permit lethal force to protect life or property, gated or
not, these are roads to avoid in an effort to prevent a potentially
mortal mistake (not so much a concern in urban areas as it is in
semi-rural and small town locations, particularly in the deserts and
mountains of Oregon where law enforcement is effectively non-existant,
and small town, semi-rural and rural locations in Oklahoma where people
have a pretty clear idea who should be around.)
> I use access=destination whenever I see the sign "no thru traffic."
> ("no thru trucks" is hgv=destination). Also, I use access=destination
> for things like roads into cemeteries, since presumably they don't
> want people drive through them to get somewhere faster.
I don't believe that use to be disputed for public and permissive
streets (such as Hall Boulevard crossing Cedar Mill Crossing) streets.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: >> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as >> access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. > > I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, > unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a > through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: New Jersey 39:4-66.2 "Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or sign." Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser > wrote: >> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as >> access=destination or access=private? > > Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? +1, unless there's a gate which you either need a card/PIN for or need a resident to allow you in, then it would be access=private. Or if it could be used as a cut through but theres a sign explicitly forbidding this (e.g. "No through road") then access=destination. I haven't often added access tags at all for condo/apartment complexes, but if I do I probably use access=permissive most often. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser wrote: > Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as > access=destination or access=private? Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
> Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as
> access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private.
I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all,
unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a
through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle?
I generally only put access=private on roads that explicitly say
private on the sign. A lot of condo complexes around here have a sign
on the driveway saying private property, no tresspassing, etc.
Apartments complexes usually don't have such a sign.
I use access=destination whenever I see the sign "no thru traffic."
("no thru trucks" is hgv=destination). Also, I use access=destination
for things like roads into cemeteries, since presumably they don't
want people drive through them to get somewhere faster.
Peter
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I can drive into them without a key card (usually); I shouldn't be using them as a through street, but they are permitted for use if my destination is on that complex street. For OpenTripPlanner, access=destination is permitted. Should we permit routing on access=private or change the tags? There are two issues here: 1) semantics of laws in the UK applied to the US, in terms of access=destination 2) how can a router use access=private without a side database of which users have permission to use which roads? 1) access=destination As I understand it, the access is tag is fundamentally about what a member of a public can do by right, and is tightly linked to British concepts of public rights of way. This maps relatively well to public ways in the US, and even to private ways (to which as far as I can tell the public has a right of access). In England there are apaprently streets where one only has a right of access if one is traveling someplace properly accessed via that street, and I am unaware of this concept having a broad counterpart in american law. In the US, we have a lot of private driveways (not "private ways") leading to houses or businesses, and we have a lot of parking lots that are privately owned and associated with businesses. "Everybody knows" that it's 100% ok to use those driveways if you are (properly) going to a house/business served by it, and that it's 100% ok to park in a lot that serves a business if you are going to that business. But people have no legal right to demand access; they are licensees or invitees on that property, and the owner can tell them to leave at any time. Thus, many people (including me) have repurposed access=destination to label places where "it's socially 100% ok to use the road/driveway/parking-lot if you have a related purpose". Others have used access=customer for the same meaning, to keep it separate from access=destination. 2) If there access=private, I take that to mean: you could physically use this, but it's just plain not allowed. To have a router use access=private ways/etc., you really need a way to know who is allowed to use which ways. For emergency=yes, that's perhaps separate from access=private, but for individuals with differing permissions, I don't see any way to succeed except to to model the entire set of "joey can use this road" facts. Given your situation, it seems like expecting access=destination is the right answer. access=private really means "unless you specifically have been given permission, you should not be on this road". There's a fine line; I know of a condo complex where there's a gate with a code, and as an invitee I have the code. So I could argue that it's access=private, and that's arguably right. But, from the point of view of making the map database useful, routing over that access=private seems better than not - it makes the situation that invittees with the code get good routing, and those without codes do not, rather than the reverse. Because those with codes are far more likely to be there, that seems socially optimal.And a gate should be modeled as a gate; that's not really the point. pgpyFhGnWK88E.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
Hi all, I have a question regarding access=private vs access=destination. In the Portland area, we have some apartment complex roadways that have been tagged as access=private. Paul makes the point that routers should be able to route on access=private as a last resort. However, in my opinion, there is a problem with adding access=private - most routers will not permit anyone to use those streets. In OpenTripPlanner's case (http://opentripplanner.com/), if it is given a starting destination within an apartment complex tagged with access=private, the router will try to snap that location to the nearest permitted road, which in some cases, may be an irrelevant or disconnected road to the origin. Paul suggests this might be a flaw in the code and maybe he is right. Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I can drive into them without a key card (usually); I shouldn't be using them as a through street, but they are permitted for use if my destination is on that complex street. For OpenTripPlanner, access=destination is permitted. Should we permit routing on access=private or change the tags? OpenTripPlanner tries to base its implementation off of OSM documentation, but I could see how apartment complex parking lots is a cross between a private driveway and a customer parking lot. >From the key:access wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access) > destination: Only when traveling to this element, e.g. *customer parking > lots. * > private: Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis ] > >From the access=private wiki page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate) > The access=private tag is generally used in combination with the road > network tags, with the purpose of indicating that the road is not to be used > by the general public. > > Usually used for Private driveways (in the city) and country lane ways, > where the road just leads to a private home. *Routing programs would be > able to detect this tag, and knows to avoid these roads when routing. * > Could y'all give some input so as to help us make an informed decision? Thanks! -- PJ Houser Trimet GIS intern ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
