On 7/14/2020 7:44 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
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.
I completely agree. Mappers should have a good and verifiable reason to
tag access=permissive on any road, and preferably they should record
what that reason is. I've seen situations where a driveway could
conceivably be tagged access=permissive, but it's rare.
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.
Tagging for the router is definitely a cousin of tagging for the
renderer. But both the router and the renderer are useful for
maintaining map quality. If something breaks the default
openstreetmap.org map, it's worth some scrutiny. Same with something
that breaks OSRM.
And the full rule as I know it is "don't tag *incorrectly* for the
renderer." Ditto for the router. I would never suggest removing a
legitimate verifiable access=private tag just to make a particular route
work. But that doesn't mean that the router's behavior can't influence
tagging at all.
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.
This is the *exact* scenario that access=destination is designed for.
Routing software should allow a route to access=destination ways, but
never through them as a short cut.
Residential driveways around me are tagged access=private. I think it's
wrong to change that.
And I feel exactly the same about access=private as I do about
access=permissive: Mappers should have a good and verifiable reason to
tag access=private on any road, and preferably they should record what
that reason is.
If mappers (or importers) have decided by fiat that all driveways should
be access=private, I believe they've done a disservice to the map and so
removing that tag is probably correct. If they're simply trying to
encode unsigned local law or custom, that's explicitly against the
community best practices. If they're pulling from a reliable
imports-list-approved open data source or tagging based on surveyed
signage, well then, high-fives all around.
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.
Agreed. Mappers should have a good and verifiable reason to tag
access=yes. But don't conflate the absence of an access tag with an
explicit access=yes, even if software treats them the same.
B) the owner expects the normal social customs to be followed, of
useonly for invited guests, deliveries/etc. and actual neighborly
visits,and doesn't put a up a no trespassing sign because it's
prickly, notbecause they want random people doing random things ==>
access=private
Here we disagree. I believe access=private means permission is required
to legally use the way. Implied permission by social custom is not the
same thing. And in the real world, a driveway and a private road that
requires permission are very different. Those accustomed to ignoring the
"part of your route is on private roads" warning on their GPS because of
access=private driveways may find themselves in for a quite a shock when
they're confronted by an angry hunting club member on an access=private
road through the woods, where the public route would have taken 5
minutes longer if they hadn't turned left an hour ago but is now it's a
2-hour detour.
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.
I can also see the case for access=destination. It's definitely valid in
some cases, and it's closest to how I feel a driveway should be
interpreted by default. But my usual preference is to omit unverifiable
access tagging.
Jason
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
