Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

On 26 May 2010 17:43, Ian Spencer wrote: > However, there is a difference in practice and right, and it > is debatable which OSM should lean to in documenting (the here and now > argument). I say we document as much information as possible... Tag it access=private (or what is the correct legal

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

Jerry Clough - OSM wrote on 26/05/2010 18:24: > The current issue with the Park Estate is about pedestrian access. The > position with cars has always been clearly stated. Recently Nottingham > City Council has started the process of designating public rights of > way (the former County Boroug

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

t Howard's blog. Seems I'm not the only one confused by access status here. ;-) From: Ian Spencer To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, 26 May, 2010 17:43:50 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are public

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

Jerry Clough - OSM wrote on 26/05/2010 16:21: > An interesting set of points. I've been puzzling over three particular > cases related to this. In each case I'm aware that the tagging is > incomplete: > > 1. The Park Estate in Nottingham. This is > emphatically a pri

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

heers, Jerry Clough SK53 From: Ian Spencer To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, 26 May, 2010 12:12:05 Subject: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible Hi I noticed that a local road which is private is designated as access::priv

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

Gregory wrote on 26/05/2010 13:38: > On 26 May 2010 12:12, Ian Spencer > wrote: > > but it is public access - they have > never tried to restrict public access, nor is the "private" sign > anything other than a statement that the road is private, it does n

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

Richard Mann wrote on 26/05/2010 13:08: > access=yes is the general default, and you could probably leave it at > that (ie with no access tag). > > access=permissive might be strictly more accurate, though I've never > seen much point to that as a tag (we're a map of the here and now, not > a map o

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

On 26 May 2010 13:33, Ian Spencer wrote: > The interesting thing is that the one thing that it is not is > access=permissive - the owners have lost their right to a private way > because over many years they have not sought to enforce or restrict that > right of way, yet they have not given permi

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

On 26 May 2010 12:12, Ian Spencer wrote: > but it is public access - they have > never tried to restrict public access, nor is the "private" sign > anything other than a statement that the road is private, it does not > say, for example :Private, no entry". As far as any user is concerned, > they

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

Craig Wallace wrote on 26/05/2010 12:46: > On 26/05/2010 12:12, Ian Spencer wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I noticed that a local road which is private is designated as >> access::private on OSM. My reading of that tag is that it implies users >> need permission to use the road. However, in common with

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

Yes we are a map of the here and now: who owns it certainly is here and now. I think access:permissive is the correct way to do this -- that's what was made for, right? JR On 26 May 2010 13:08, Richard Mann wrote: > access=permissive might be strictly more accurate, though I've never > seen muc

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

access=yes is the general default, and you could probably leave it at that (ie with no access tag). access=permissive might be strictly more accurate, though I've never seen much point to that as a tag (we're a map of the here and now, not a map of what the owner might do in future) maybe designa

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

On 26/05/2010 13:12, Ian Spencer wrote: > Hi > > I noticed that a local road which is private is designated as > access::private on OSM. My reading of that tag is that it implies users > need permission to use the road. However, in common with many private > roads, it is in private maintenance, but

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

On 26/05/2010 12:12, Ian Spencer wrote: > Hi > > I noticed that a local road which is private is designated as > access::private on OSM. My reading of that tag is that it implies users > need permission to use the road. However, in common with many private > roads, it is in private maintenance, but

[Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

Hi I noticed that a local road which is private is designated as access::private on OSM. My reading of that tag is that it implies users need permission to use the road. However, in common with many private roads, it is in private maintenance, but it is public access - they have never tried to