Tod Fitch <t...@fitchfamily.org> writes: > 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.
access=permissive is good when mappers know that the owner is ok with people using the road. access=yes is defined to mean that the public has a *right* of access. A driveway to a a house very definitely does not meet that test. Around me the norm is that residential driveways (98% of them) are not signed no trespassing, but that it is considered reasonable to use them if 1) you live there 2) you are delivering something 3) you are a guest 4) you are going there for some other reason widely considered legit, like "I'm a new neightbor and saying hello". It is not reasonable to just drive up them because you feel like it, get out of your car, stand there for two minutes, get back in and leave. That will typically result in someone calling the police. If it were access=yes, like a real road, that would still be odd, but not actionable. So I don't think access=permissive is proper for residential driveways unless there is good reason to believe that. It probably is a good fit for private roads in neighborhoods that don't have a culture of no trespassing signs where many people come and go. As for access=private 'breaking' routing, this discussion feels very much like tagging for the router, instead of tagging what is and fixing the router. If you are driving someplace and you have permission, then it should be expected that you can use access=private ways to get to your destination. Humans konw this, and while most people wouldn't randomly drive down other people's driveways, it's obvious that if you are invited to a house it's ok to use their driveway. So a router that does not allow use of access=private for a final segment, by default, is broken. (OSM's data model is not rich enough to label private with who has permission when. That's what is really needed to make this work.) Suppose there is a house with a driveway that connects two roads with the house in the middle, that's access=private. A router should not use that segment unless the destination is on that property. That's why I said that routers should allow a final segement of private, but not a transition to private and a transition back. Residential driveways around me are tagged access=private. I think it's wrong to change that. I won't argue that tiger imported data gets this right. I am really just saing that a driveway to a house should not be tagged access=yes because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen. That is a complete violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that access should be yes. Given our defaults, no access tag is equivalent to that. If you can see it is a residential driveway and it is not signed no trespassing, the two possibilities are: A) the owner is truly ok with random usage of the driveway *other than for legit purposes to visit or help the owner ==> acesss=permisssive B) the owner expects the normal social customs to be followed, of use only for invited guests, deliveries/etc. and actual neighborly visits, and doesn't put a up a no trespassing sign because it's prickly, not because they want random people doing random things ==> access=private C is not a possibilty) The driveway is really legally a public way. (Well, anyone can be confused, but public way status can be looked up at town hall, making it entirely verifiable.) When looking at such a driveway, one cannot tell for sure which is the case of A and B. But at least around me, it's 99.9% B, and thus "looks like a residential driveway" is the verfiable backup for access=private. I can certainly see a case for "access=destination" for these driveways, with semantics that IF you have a reason to go to the house, you may use the driveway. But that's still access=private for the house and arguably the land, and just moves things around in a way that I think makes routing and data interpetation harder, and is thus a bad idea. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
