Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > May 25, 2020, 02:45 by a...@thaw.de: >> >> [access=private driveways implicitly permitting delivieries to destination?] >> >> Not all deliveries are actively requested, and the delivery person can't >> know if you requested it or not. > > Good point. Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for > delivery services? > My uncle has farm, with clearly private yard (it is unsigned). > > Postman or package delivery would be welcomed there and - even if package > would not be requested, but random person driving to > front of his house would not be and AFAIK would violate law.
I think what you're describing is access=destination, not =private. > [...] > >> FWIW, I'm less happy with the current state of the access=private page. But >> I'm not sure if consensus exists to clarify it. > What is wrong and how you want to change it? It does not specifiy precisely what the tag value =private means. It also doesn't make a clear enough distinction between private ownership and private access (by using the term "private" colloqiually and by showing a picture of what looks like an ownership=private situation). To stick with driveways, consider yesterday's posts by Colin Smale and Florian Lohoff on this topic on OSM-talk. [1][2] It seems to me that to a degree, both points of view can be backed up by the current text on the access=private wiki page. [3] That suggests the wiki page doesn't describe the tag in a particularly useful way. I think the earlier example of a nuclear power plant was a useful one. We clearly need a tag value that means: Absolutely no access unless by explicit prior permission. Currently, =private seems to fill that need. That would mean the definition of =private cannot include any kind of "implicit" permissions. Those would need another tag value. Implicit permissions should probably be treated by routers similarly to =destination, so perhaps =destination (or =permissive) could simply be used in such cases? A side-effect of requiring explicit permissions for =private is that =no and =private are almost exact synonyms. (The =private wiki page already points this out.) Therefore, an alternative might be to give the meaning "explicit prior permission required" to =no, while allowing implicit permissions for =private. This would seem like a major change though, and I'm not sure I'd agree with it. I think the =private wiki page could be improved by clarifying that =private really does require _explicit_ prior permission. The "Facilities" section already mentions "a closed group of users", which implies just that, but evidently this isn't very clear. Additionally, the language generally could use a bit of cleanup, the relation to alternatives like =destination should be mentioned, and the picture should be like a "no trespassing" sign (ideally something that works for most jurisdictions). (I might take a swing at this if I find the time.) [1] <549c82c01046d2acd1ad8d41ca408...@xs4all.nl> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-May/084774.html [2] <20200525181730.6rbnfqyygw3yt...@pax.zz.de> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-May/084791.html [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:access%3Dprivate&oldid=1986562 -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
