May 24, 2020, 20:47 by f...@zz.de: > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:10:41PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > >> I just added some example at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access >> and improved existing one. >> >> Review, and improving edits (or comments here) would be welcomed. >> >> Deliberately posting to talk to get review also from people less involved in >> tagging discussions. >> >> Thanks to Malenki and Seventy7 for suggesting it (in 2009 and 2010 >> respectively). >> > > For me its missing at least 2 points: > > - The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and > verifyable. > Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction? "visible assigned" is not limited to just traffic sign. For example driveway behind a gate can be tagged as access=private (except gates that can be opened by anybody or by all customers or something like that). In some cases it is visibly assigned and verifiable, but sign may be a bit distant - for example access restrictions in nature reserves ("leaving signed trails is not acceptable") or zone traffic signs, with entrances signed "no access except residents". >From quick review I am unable to remember any actually existing access restriction that would not be taggable. > - To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible. > Can you find a good example for that? I was unable to find one that would not be ridiculous, so despite of desire of including something like that I skipped it. > For example the German forum fights (with me) for tagging all driveways > as access=private disregarding any signs of the will of the owner. So > even you dont post additional signs or putting a gate on your > driveway the proposal is to tag everything access=private. > At least in Poland it is 100% correct, except rare cases where any member of public is allowed to open such gate. > I dont think thats a good idea as it makes the driveway and the area > of the nuclear power plant indistinguishable. > For access purposes this is correct, in both cases you need permission from owner to enter and in both cases routing into such POI should be capable of allowing to finish route using access=private ways (and warn user that it is happening). > So as a delivery > like Amazon Logistics, UPS, FedEx and Co you have to ignore > access=privates to be able to actually use your driveway, > Yep. > which automatically makes them ignore the power plants service > as well. > And this way for routing for worker of power plant asking for a route to a place of work will continue to work. Is there something missing that I do not see? Is access=private supposed to be incorrect in either case? > This will be prone to real errors and bad workarounds. > > So - people try to overload the meaning of access=private > with something more like ownership=private. > > So IMHO the advice to tag EVERY driveway with access=private is a very > bad one. > Yes, driveways that are open to general public (shared driveway without gate or other restrictions) or to all customers (tourism attraction driveway) should not be tagged like a private driveway.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
