On 7/14/2020 7:44 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
Around me the norm is that residential driveways (98% of them) are not
signed no trespassing, but that it is considered reasonable to use them
if 1) you live there 2) you are delivering something 3) you are a guest
4) you are going there for some other
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:46 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
> So a router that does not allow use of access=private for a final
> segment, by default, is broken.
+1
Even if we go with the idea that driveways are not access=private unless
posted, there are some driveways that are posted, and people
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 7:46 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
> ...
>
> As for access=private 'breaking' routing, this discussion feels very
> much like tagging for the router, instead of tagging what is and fixing
> the router. If you are driving someplace and you have permission, then
> it should be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:15 AM, Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> The (possible) problem with having access implied by service=driveway is
> that a lot of access roads to stores/businesses/offices are also
>
On 14/07/2020 09.44, Alex Hennings wrote:
Regarding:
a driveway to a house should not be tagged access=yes
because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen. That is a complete
violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that
access should be yes.
*Given our defaults, no access
Regarding:
> a driveway to a house should not be tagged access=yes
> because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen. That is a complete
> violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that
> access should be yes.
*Given our defaults, no access tag is equivalent> to that.*
You're
Jul 14, 2020, 13:17 by jm...@gmx.com:
> On 7/14/2020 4:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
>
>>
>> Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by >> jm...@gmx.com>> :
>>
>>> If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to
>>> be on
>>> that way, then access=private would be
Tod Fitch writes:
> There are “gated communities” where you can’t get in unless you have a
> card key or speak with a gate keeper. Those should, I think, have
> access=private as you need explicit permission on each entry.
>
> But for the case where the road is privately owned but the owner
>
On 7/14/2020 4:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by jm...@gmx.com:
On 7/13/2020 4:09 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:
The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be
private; at least
On 7/13/2020 3:22 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
Out of curiosity, I looked at the tagging of a neighborhood I know of
which has privately owned roads (maintained by the homeowner’s
association) but no gate blocking entry. There are signs indicating
that the roads are “private” but that state road
needed explicit permission to be on
> that way, then access=private would be correct.
>
I am unsure what is the best way to tag "explicit permission not required,
implicit permission is required" case. (it is not a big problem in Poland
where nearly all such roads will have a gate any
On 7/13/2020 4:09 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:
The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
> On Jul 13, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Jmapb wrote:
> (Trying once again to change this thread subject!)
>
> I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.
>
> To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the routing
> to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602
>
On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:
I'll confess to having perpetrated a fair number - at a time when I
didn't know better.
Likewise. That said...
A few things, though:
The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:52 PM Jmapb wrote:
> I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.
>
> To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the routing
> to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 by drawing in the
> driveway
On 7/13/2020 12:59 PM, Alex Hennings wrote:
The /sole purpose/ of routing is to get the user to their destination
without breaking any laws. These are also /specifically my/ /goals
/when I'm using a router. Frequently (in my rural area) getting to my
destination requires using a privately owned
On 7/12/2020 6:03 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote:
> The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the
> tiger:reviewed=no tag until access can be confirmed, and add a
E' normale che un track con access=private non venga visualizato? Su mapnik si
vede (1), ma visualizzando il file Italy con Mapsource il tratto taggato con
access=privato scompare.
Bruno
(1)http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.5234amp;lon=12.99825amp;zoom=17amp;layers=M
2012/1/29 bruno@libero.it bruno@libero.it:
E' normale che un track con access=private non venga visualizato?
Dipende. La visualizzazione di una qualsiasi feature dipende dalle
regole di visualizzazione (stylesheet) dello specifico render.
Su mapnik
si vede (1), ma visualizzando il
2012/1/29 bruno@libero.it bruno@libero.it:
Infatti mi referivo al formato garmin x mapsource. ho provato con due
stylesheet (classic e thin) ma con nessuno dei due il trak viene mostrato.
Ma a quali mappe Garmin ti riferisci?
Se si tratta delle openmtbmap, potresti sollevare il problema
Ciao,
immagino che ti stia riferendo alle openmtbmap.
In questo caso, è normale anzi è una scelta dell'autore introdotta da
maggio di quest'anno.
In pratica nella sua mappa vengono ignorati i segmenti che hanno
access=private, a meno che non contengano esplicitamente bicycle=yes oppure
uno dei
2008/7/15 André Reichelt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
GeoJ schrieb:
ich bin gerade auf ein paar Unklarheiten im Wiki zum tag access
gestoßen,
die nicht so ganz zusammenpassen.
Die Übersetzung habe ich gemacht. Das Problem ist, dass damals der Wortlaut
noch anders war.
access=privateThe
André Reichelt wrote:
GeoJ schrieb:
ich bin gerade auf ein paar Unklarheiten im Wiki zum tag access
gestoßen,
die nicht so ganz zusammenpassen.
Die Übersetzung habe ich gemacht. Das Problem ist, dass damals der
Wortlaut noch anders war.
access=private The owner may give permission
Hi,
ich bin gerade auf ein paar Unklarheiten im Wiki zum tag access gestoßen,
die nicht so ganz zusammenpassen.
Auf der englischen Seite [1] ist die Beschreibung
access=private
The owner may give permission on an individual basis
access=permissive
The owner gives general
GeoJ schrieb:
ich bin gerade auf ein paar Unklarheiten im Wiki zum tag access gestoßen,
die nicht so ganz zusammenpassen.
Die Übersetzung habe ich gemacht. Das Problem ist, dass damals der
Wortlaut noch anders war.
access=private
The owner may give permission on an individual basis
25 matches
Mail list logo