Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

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,
has business there.)


...this seems to be the definition of access=destination?


I'd say yes, that access=destination is closest to how I interpret most
driveways: you can walk/drive along the driveway if you have a good
reason, eg to make a delivery or an inquiry.

If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to be on
that way, then access=private would be correct. (And IMO someone
delivering to an address shouldn't automatically assume permission to
access a restricted way -- the ship-to address is not necessarily the
property of the person who requested the delivery.)


Is that the recommended way to tag residential driveways?

And I would say no, that tagging all driveways access=destination would
violate the traditional OSM best practice of "Don't map your local
legislation unless it's actually signed" (or however it's phrased.)
Unless there's a sign or some other indication (mapper's head on a
pike?) that this particular driveway has different access rules than
you'd expect, best to omit the access tag.




I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a
road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination
is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and
then does so happily.


My car does this, and doesn't even ask. It just warns me that "this
route uses private roads". I generally assume that's talking about the
final leg and ignore it.


I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of
'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for
everyone' is a bit hyperbolic.


Yup.


Fair cop, I should have said "breaking routing for others" not "breaking
routing for everyone." I'm quite glad to hear that OSMAnd deals
gracefully with this problem, because no matter how much I retag and
finger-wag it will always be with us.


That said, it does seem like access=destination is more correct for
ways that aren't explicitly access-restricted?

Agreed, but I feel that in most cases, especially for driveways, the
access tag is better omitted. And regardless, the armchair tagging of
driveways as access=private strikes me as an error.

Jason

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Tod Fitch]

> 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 
>  by drawing in the driveway 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 
>  and then snatching defeat from 
> the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway private. Yes, a large company 
> like Amazon (who paid for this driveway to be mapped, so we might presume 
> it's mapped to their specifications) can implement their own router and treat 
> the access=private tags more loosely, but that's no reason for them to be 
> breaking routing for everyone else.
> 
> In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should ONLY be 
> tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a restriction. And if 
> the access restriction is not verifiable by survey, it's good to add a 
> access:source=* or note=* so mappers like me won't assume the tag is outdated 
> or erroneous.
> 
> And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question of service roads 
> that lead to private enclaves within public lands. Often these roads are 
> public access up to a certain point, and having that information correctly 
> mapped is quite helpful. Many of these are imported from TIGER with 
> access=private the whole way, and reclaiming as much of these as possible is 
> certainly on my to-do list.
> 
> As far as what sign wording actually warrants access=private... "No 
> Trespassing", "Keep Out", that sort of thing. I agree that simply seeing the 
> word "private" does not equate to access=private, though in some situations 
> it would incline me towards access=destination. I wasn't aware of 
> ownership=private but I'll put it to use in the future.

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 regulations are enforced. The access on those roads is 
currently tagged as access=permissive.

Thinking about it, that seems correct: The roads are privately owned. But you 
are free to access them unless or until the owner withdraws permission.

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 allows access 
without prior consent, access=permissive seems to be a good fit.

—Tod




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Jul 13, 2020, 20:29 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:

> On 13/07/2020 14.22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> If you are staying from manually reviewing
>> and editing based on this new data,
>> aerials and current data it should be
>> perfectly fine as long as you actually review
>> what you add.
>>
>
> For now, yes. For buildings (later, and I'll probably ping y'all again), I 
> expect that to be more automated, but probably still manually reviewed.
>
> It is still required to use a separate account for manually audited changes?
>
Is it going to be "by comparing dataset X and OSM I found places to map roads 
that I added
using aerial images"? Or more of "manually copied and verified geometries from 
external dataset"?

I would say that for second case I would create an import page on wiki and so 
on,
including a separate user while for first just post on relevant mailing lists.

For "more automated" buildings you definitely need separate account, Wiki page 
documentation
etc.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Someone from Craigslist here?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

a recent complaint to DWG led me to investigate the area around
Greenville (Plumas County, Northern California), and I found that a
couple TIGER streets that had been deleted on OSM in January 2019 were
still visible on Craigslist
(https://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/craigslist.png shows current OSM
left, and craigslist right;
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66467286 is the deletion
changeset).

It would certainly be beneficial to both us and Craigslist if they could
update. Maybe there's someone here who has contacts and could prod them.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Matthew Woehlke]

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 up to someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
has business there.)


...this seems to be the definition of access=destination? Is that the 
recommended way to tag residential driveways?



I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a
road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination
is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and
then does so happily.


My car does this, and doesn't even ask. It just warns me that "this 
route uses private roads". I generally assume that's talking about the 
final leg and ignore it.


I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of 
'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for 
everyone' is a bit hyperbolic.


Yup. That said, it does seem like access=destination is more correct for 
ways that aren't explicitly access-restricted?


--
Matthew

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Kevin Kenny]

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 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 and then snatching 
> defeat from the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway private. Yes, a large 
> company like Amazon (who paid for this driveway to be mapped, so we might 
> presume it's mapped to their specifications) can implement their own router 
> and treat the access=private tags more loosely, but that's no reason for them 
> to be breaking routing for everyone else.
>
> In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should ONLY be 
> tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a restriction. And if 
> the access restriction is not verifiable by survey, it's good to add a 
> access:source=* or note=* so mappers like me won't assume the tag is outdated 
> or erroneous.
>
> And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question of service roads 
> that lead to private enclaves within public lands. Often these roads are 
> public access up to a certain point, and having that information correctly 
> mapped is quite helpful. Many of these are imported from TIGER with 
> access=private the whole way, and reclaiming as much of these as possible is 
> certainly on my to-do list.

I'll confess to having perpetrated a fair number - at a time when I
didn't know better.

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 up to someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
has business there.)

I ordinarily will NOT hike on a service way or track across
privately-owned land unless I see some indication that it is open, or
I know what the situation is in advance. Of course, there are
exceptions: for instance, I know of some woods roads that are public
rights-of-way, dating to a time before the automobile, where
landowners have attempted to close them.  The local hiking club
advises to hike them, openly and notoriously, disregarding the
posters.  (In at least one case that I'm aware of, the landowner
eventually changed the posters to read, "PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON
PRIVATE LAND. STAY ON TRAIL")
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291410854 is a public highway,
whatever the posters say! But most of the roads that have signs like
'Johnson Lane // PRIVATE'  are just farm driveways that I ordinarily
wouldn't hike.

I surely don't mark as `acccess=private` the service roads going to
inholdings on public land, whoever maintains them.  The last one I can
recall mapping was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20631036 - and I
marked it as `motor_vechicle=private` (it's signed 'no motor
vehicles'), `foot=designated bicycle=no wheelchair=no atv=no ski=yes
snowmobile=yes` and I left out `horse` because I have Absolutely No
Idea, except for the fact that the trail was free of horse
by-products. (Whether to use 'track', 'service' or 'residential' for
that way is controversial and in the end is also meaningless.  It's
there mostly for forestry. Someone happens to have a cabin on it. In
the field, it's a pair of ruts winding off into the woods.)

I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a
road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination
is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and
then does so happily.  (Much more happily than before I tweaked
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/165370475 to restore network
connectivity. When I was driving on it, it wound up scolding me, "You
have been driving off road for the last 1.5 miles. Please proceed to
the highlighted route!") It's not just whatever custom system Amazon
uses. I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of
'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for
everyone' is a bit hyperbolic.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 13/07/2020 14.22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

If you are staying from manually reviewing
and editing based on this new data,
aerials and current data it should be
perfectly fine as long as you actually review
what you add.


For now, yes. For buildings (later, and I'll probably ping y'all again), 
I expect that to be more automated, but probably still manually reviewed.


It is still required to use a separate account for manually audited changes?

--
Matthew

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Ok, then it should be ok.

If you are staying from manually reviewing
and editing based on this new data,
aerials and current data it should be
perfectly fine as long as you actually review 
what you add.

13 Jul 2020, 20:15 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:

> On 13/07/2020 13.44, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
>
>> Are you sure that it is in public domain?
>>
>
> It is according to the government POC.
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/2020-July/000954.html
>
> -- 
> Matthew
>___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 13/07/2020 13.44, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:

Are you sure that it is in public domain?


It is according to the government POC.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/2020-July/000954.html

--
Matthew

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

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 road. You might say
"access=private" isn't a problem because I can tell my router to
ignore "access=private". But I don't want to go down any roads that
say "Stay out" and have a gate, or a person brandishing a rifle.
When every privately owned road is marked as access=private, it is not
possible for me to achieve both of those goals (get there, don't break
laws) at the same time. By encouraging routers to ignore
"access=private" you're neutering real access restrictions.

So, you're either saying /don't worry about/ breaking laws, or /don't
worry about/ getting to your destination

That is my argument /against access=private/ on privately owned roads.
My argument /for ownership=private/ is to set a clear and visible
precedent that private ownership /has a tag/, which /is not the access
tag.
/

-Alex

(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 by
drawing in the driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 and
then snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway
private. Yes, a large company like Amazon (who paid for this driveway to
be mapped, so we might presume it's mapped to their specifications) can
implement their own router and treat the access=private tags more
loosely, but that's no reason for them to be breaking routing for
everyone else.

In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should ONLY be
tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a restriction. And
if the access restriction is not verifiable by survey, it's good to add
a access:source=* or note=* so mappers like me won't assume the tag is
outdated or erroneous.

And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question of service
roads that lead to private enclaves within public lands. Often these
roads are public access up to a certain point, and having that
information correctly mapped is quite helpful. Many of these are
imported from TIGER with access=private the whole way, and reclaiming as
much of these as possible is certainly on my to-do list.

As far as what sign wording actually warrants access=private... "No
Trespassing", "Keep Out", that sort of thing. I agree that simply seeing
the word "private" does not equate to access=private, though in some
situations it would incline me towards access=destination. I wasn't
aware of ownership=private but I'll put it to use in the future.

Jason

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Are you sure that it is in public domain?

Is it work of federal government?
Or a state government?

13 Jul 2020, 16:48 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:

> (Repost to talk-us also.)
>
> On 13/07/2020 10.44, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
>> I am working on a project that wishes to tentatively use OSM data from 
>> Quantico and possibly surrounding areas. Unfortunately, OSM is somewhat 
>> lacking in this area, especially within Quantico itself.
>>
>> I would like to import data from information provided by the county¹. To 
>> start with, I would like to use the country-provided roads to improve road 
>> shapes and fill in missing roads (for now, manually, probably using 
>> Merkaartor, and checked against available aerial imagery). Eventually, I 
>> want to add buildings and maybe anything else that seems useful.
>>
>> Being data generated by an agency of the US government, the source data is 
>> Public Domain (verified via the contact information provided on the site).
>>
>> Comments/concerns/objections/suggestions?
>>
>> (¹ https://gisdata-pwcgov.opendata.arcgis.com/)
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Alex Hennings]

Kevin,

Maybe we have different contexts? In my area, we have privately owned roads
 that are more than just
driveways.

Regarding: "*don't worry about it*"

I find this dissatisfying.

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 road. You might say "access=private" isn't
a problem because I can tell my router to ignore "access=private". But I
don't want to go down any roads that say "Stay out" and have a gate, or a
person brandishing a rifle.
When every privately owned road is marked as access=private, it is not
possible for me to achieve both of those goals (get there, don't break
laws) at the same time. By encouraging routers to ignore "access=private"
you're neutering real access restrictions.

So, you're either saying *don't worry about* breaking laws, or *don't worry
about* getting to your destination

That is my argument *against access=private* on privately owned roads. My
argument *for ownership=private* is to set a clear and visible precedent
that private ownership *has a tag*, which
*is not the access tag.*

-Alex



On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:49 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 6:05 PM Mike Thompson  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 note or fixme. (It's also quite
> common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend
> to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private,
> since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the
> driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road
> that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's
> connected to.)
> > I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads
> (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private.  Often these
> private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private
> road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only."
>
> One thing to watch out for in the countryside is that there are often
> streets signed 'Xxx Drive // PRIVATE'  meaning that the road is
> privately maintained, rather than meaning 'no trespassing.'
>
> But here I think that the importance of the distinction is overblown.
> I strongly suspect:
>
> (1) People don't ordinarily want to be routed down these
> privately-maintained roads (which are usually, in effect, driveways
> that happen to serve more than one establishment) unless they have
> business with some establishment on the road.
> (2) Delivery drivers use routers that allow for access to private
> drives to deliver to the associated residence.  (In effect, the person
> who ordered the goods for delivery has issued an invitation to the
> carrier.)
>
> and hence, the public/private distinction for service ways falls in my
> mental model under, 'don't worry about it.'
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Matthew Woehlke]

(Repost to talk-us also.)

On 13/07/2020 10.44, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I am working on a project that wishes to tentatively use OSM data from 
Quantico and possibly surrounding areas. Unfortunately, OSM is somewhat 
lacking in this area, especially within Quantico itself.


I would like to import data from information provided by the county¹. To 
start with, I would like to use the country-provided roads to improve 
road shapes and fill in missing roads (for now, manually, probably using 
Merkaartor, and checked against available aerial imagery). Eventually, I 
want to add buildings and maybe anything else that seems useful.


Being data generated by an agency of the US government, the source data 
is Public Domain (verified via the contact information provided on the 
site).


Comments/concerns/objections/suggestions?

(¹ https://gisdata-pwcgov.opendata.arcgis.com/)




--
Matthew

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us