We have a somewhat similar problem in Belgium: a lot of historical paths are by law open to everyone, however they are private property. So the road is private, but the access is not. It would then not make sense to put an access=private tag, as the owner has no right to allow or restrict access. However, you do want to give this info to data consumers, as owners often put a sign "private property" to scare people off. Hence something like property=private + access=yes would be useful.
Maybe a bit off topic, but it might help the thinking process on this issue. 2016-07-21 3:56 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> > wrote: > >> Yep. I asked a similar question at >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028504.html >> but there was no particular consensus. >> >> access=permit seems to have moderate usage (slightly more than =license, >> which is in any case misspelled) so I'd go for that. > > > You've just demonstrated that this is a recurring issue. "You have to get > permission, but permission will not ordinarily be refused" is a common > situation here in the US. What's the process for modifying the 'accepted' > set of values? (I presume that simply wikifying it would be regarded as > vandalism.) > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- Joost @ Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
