Minh Nguyen <m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> writes: > On 2015-10-03 07:45, Mike Thompson wrote: >> >> By removing access=private you would be removing a valuable piece of >> information. Maybe the community can come up with a better tag, but we >> should not just delete the "private" tag. > > How do people here feel about using access=destination on driveways > that aren't posted? It more or less captures "who is allowed", if not > "who owns the road". The tag is designed for streets posted with "no > through traffic" signs, but that's pretty much what's been described > in this thread.
That would be wrong. Driveways on private property are access=private because essentially no one has a right of access. access=yes is about having a legal right of use, seaprately from being granted permission. access=destination is about having a legal right of use, as long as one is traveling to someplace reachable by the way. Using a driveway to get to a house or business when one is going there is normal, because there's an implied permission to be at the destination. But it's still permission, not a legal right. Arguably driveways in shopping malls and other busy place should be access=permissive. I tend to not tag those and to tag the parking lots access=customers. That is a little funny, becuase there is no right of access, but that seems to be how we encode "permission is granted to customers to park". What's wrong with the private tag? Is the only objection that it shows up pink on the map? That's a clue that the rendering is wrong, not the tag.
pgpiUH2Af7sDN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
