The access tag doesn't really capture if it's private property or not. You can have private property which is open to the public, and you can have public lands closed to the public. So you can't really set the access tag just on the basis of it being private land as it all depends how it's signed or any implicit access restrictions.
On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 16:29, Sebastian Azagra Flores <s.aza...@me.com> wrote: > In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access has > not been revoked by the owner? > In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private property > (as it is a retirement village) > I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to > use in lieu of destination. > > > > > regards, > > Sebastian > > On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, <fors...@ozonline.com.au> wrote: > >> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit >> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the >> access=destination tag. >> >> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not >> conform? >> > > See also > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only > and the linked discussion thread. > > Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the > local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more > "access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something > signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset > comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then > I think it's reasonable to revert. > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
