Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi Colin,

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:54:46AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> > You cant tell whether this access=private is okay to break, and the
> > other not.
> 
> "private" is not the same as "no". It simply means that the owner has
> the right to decide who to admit, and the default is "no access" unless
> you have explicit or implicit permission from the owner. 

For some/all routers it is. At least for my QA stuff i use OSRM
with default car profile has private -> no. It on the access
restrictions blacklist.

Those ways basically drop of the graph. Which is IMHO correct.
We/Technology cant decide whether we fall into that category of beeing
allowed to traverse that specific part of the road network. So
technology has to refrain from using it.

> With respect to private driveways, they are simply private. The owner
> will tolerate friends and neighbours, postmen, delivery drivers etc
> coming to the door - you could say they have implicit permission. A
> random person however has no implicit permission and must keep out. 

No - I see this behaviour more as "permissive" - Because you dont have a
blacklist until you find somebody to deny access.

On the opposite private is "Everybody is on the blacklist with some 
exceptions". This is not the way a default driveway works.

You implicitly allow anyone visiting you to use it, until somebody
shouts at you.
 
> In Germany it sounds like it is the same as it is here in the
> Netherlands. If you don't put up a sign saying "keep out" or equivalent,
> no actual offence is committed by passing the sign onto your land.
> However you, as the land owner, have the sole right to erect such a sign
> at your discretion and to make the rules as you see fit. 

Correct - But thats a legalese of private property. So its a matter of
ownership not a per se access restriction. Access restrictions come into
the game as soon as there is a visible intention e.g. "Keep out" "No
trespassing" or even some physical barrier (Which might be a simple
rope)
 
> There is also the category "access=permissive" which is in the middle.
> You have no statutory right to access the land, however the owner has
> clearly decided to allow the public access (i.e. everybody has implicit
> permission). The owner can (in theory at least) rescind that implied
> easement at any time or otherwise restrict access.

permissive is the opposite of private.

permissive  -> Anyone until further notice
private -> Noone until further notice

And driveways are for welcoming people you most certainly dont know in
advance. So a driveway by behaviour is not private unless you explicitly
want it that way.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 24, 2020, 18:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 24. May 2020, at 12:16, 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.
>>
>
>
> it’s a lot of text, are you sure it improves the page to add extensive prose 
> examples? 
>
Yes. I wanted to at least try making it accessible for people starting with OSM 
tagging.
Though if there is clear opinion that examples are not helpful for anybody I 
would be fine
with deleting it (though I am pretty sure that it is helpful at least for part 
of people,
I generally love examples in documentation of various kind and AFAIK I am not 
unique).

I reverted TOC move, so long text should be now have lower negative impact.

> I have for example noted you write about “private road” as if it would imply 
> access controlled road, while the same term is commonly used also for roads 
> in private ownership (but with public access rights). The  example in this 
> case  seems to add more to the confusion than it removes.
>
This should be fixed now - can you look at it again?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

The problem with that is that moving examples after full specification will be 
very
effective in scaring away people who are not experts.

May 24, 2020, 15:16 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> More examples are very helpful, so than you, but in my opinion the examples 
> should go near the end, at least after the specification (so list of 
> transport modes and possible values)
>
> 1. Introduction (as exists)
> 2. Full list of transport modes
> 3. List of possible values
> 4. Examples
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 20:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <> 
> talk@openstreetmap.org> > 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).
>> ___
>>  talk mailing list
>>  >> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 25, 2020, 02:56 by a...@thaw.de:

> 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.
>>
>
>
> I disagree with moving the Table Of Contents far from the top of the page. I 
> use it for quick access to the individual chapters, and am having a hard time 
> finding it quickly. I think that especially on a page as long and complex as 
> this one, it's important that the TOC is at the top of the page, right before 
> the first header.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=1994648=1994635
>
TOC move was undone
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=1994944=1994904

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-25 10:27, Florian Lohoff wrote:

> A small and very vocal part of the German community proposes to tag
> EVERY driveway - no matter if it has a gate or sign with access=private.
> Somebody slipped stuff into the German access=private page which i
> removed a while back as it had no consensus. Still some continue with
> this practice and for me they break the delivery use-case and a lot of
> other stuff (You cant to blind navigation to the front door as private
> has to be honored)
> 
> You cant tell whether this access=private is okay to break, and the
> other not.

"private" is not the same as "no". It simply means that the owner has
the right to decide who to admit, and the default is "no access" unless
you have explicit or implicit permission from the owner. 

With respect to private driveways, they are simply private. The owner
will tolerate friends and neighbours, postmen, delivery drivers etc
coming to the door - you could say they have implicit permission. A
random person however has no implicit permission and must keep out. 

In Germany it sounds like it is the same as it is here in the
Netherlands. If you don't put up a sign saying "keep out" or equivalent,
no actual offence is committed by passing the sign onto your land.
However you, as the land owner, have the sole right to erect such a sign
at your discretion and to make the rules as you see fit. 

There is also the category "access=permissive" which is in the middle.
You have no statutory right to access the land, however the owner has
clearly decided to allow the public access (i.e. everybody has implicit
permission). The owner can (in theory at least) rescind that implied
easement at any time or otherwise restrict access.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi Mateusz,

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:11:04AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> > At least thats very different in Germany. There is no such thing as
> > "Stand your ground" in the US legalese. As long as you dont show
> > clear intend of "out of bounds" e.g. fences, gates or signage
> > its not a federal offense to walk on private property. You may
> > still be sent away, ignoring THAT is a federal offense, but until
> > then there its no legal offense to step on private property.
> >
> So it is about a road that is without "no entry" signs, not marked 
> as privately owned, without gate/chain etc?
> 
> Tagging it as access=private seems wrong.

Correct - Thats my point.

> > So we tag stuff people are assumed to ignore? We should fix tagging
> > to make it distinguishable.
> >
> Depends on your usecase - for routing you may want to inrerpret
> access=private on final approach differently.
> 
> It may be valuable info for example for a renderer.
> 
> But what you want to distinguish here?
> 
> "owner has locked gate but orders pizza often, will open gate for delivery" 
> from
> "owner has locked gate and never orders deliveries"?
> 
> I am probably missing something.

Its not MY usecase - but we should take care not to mix up data people
are using TODAY - And Amazon Logistics is fixing stuff like that already
today as we broke it, or made it impossible to distinguish it.

A small and very vocal part of the German community proposes to tag
EVERY driveway - no matter if it has a gate or sign with access=private.
Somebody slipped stuff into the German access=private page which i
removed a while back as it had no consensus. Still some continue with
this practice and for me they break the delivery use-case and a lot of
other stuff (You cant to blind navigation to the front door as private
has to be honored)

You cant tell whether this access=private is okay to break, and the
other not.

> > Its indistinguishable - Thats the problem. A private on a driveway
> > is definitly something which is not verifyable in most cases
> >
> Why it is not verifiable?
> 
> (it may be a cultural difference, in Poland driveway with restricted 
> access will have a gate or at least a sign, it is not a driveway with 
> restricted
> access otherwise)

Ah - Thats a different issue. In Germany the small group proposes to tag
EVERY driveway with access=private - mixing it up with private property.

So - when there is no sign, no chain, no gate - How do you verify the
intention of the owner that it is "out of bounds"? You cant. 
And for that breaks a pretty important rule of OSM that it must be
verifyable.


> > For me a service is by itself not for the general public as the service
> > article already states. Tagging it with driveway does make it even less
> > public. It will be not used as through road anyway.
> >
> I may be a bit unusual here but it is often not true for cyclists and hikers.
> They often use serice roads (even driveway segments) that are not private, 
> that is why 
> distinguishing between driveway accessible to general public and
> restricted one is important for me.
> 
> For example 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240494343#map=19/50.06452/19.92326
> (driveway into an university area, signed as living_street is a part of 
> alternative route for
> cyclists allowing to skip dual carriageway with heavy trafffic)
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174699639#map=19/49.26939/19.98083
> service road (correctly tagged) carrying hiking trails and almost
> certainly incorrectly tagged as inaccessible for pedestrians
> ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2205168 ).
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/714080089#map=19/49.28399/20.00194
> correctly tagged driveway, serving as public wheelchair accessible path
> toward major tourism attraction (correctly tagged as without access
> restrictions
> https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplica_Naj%C5%9Bwi%C4%99tszego_Serca_Jezusa_w_Jaszczur%C3%B3wce#/media/Plik:Kaplica_Jaszczurowka.jpg)

A driveway is not something which is per se "out of bounds" - At least
OSRM treats it a lot like "destination" e.g. increases the cost of
routing. This was my example - a service/driveway in OSRM acts a lot
like a destination, whereas the same with access=private is
inaccessible.

> > So there is a difference between a driveway with and without any signs, 
> > gates or
> > fences. If not globally than at least for Germany.
>
> Yes, also in Poland there are driveways without any access restrictions
> and ones that are restricted to private access and some with more exotic ones.

Right - thats my point. As soon as there is some visible intent of the
owner that the driveway is out of bounds - like a sign, chain, gate,
fence etc i am happy with taking this intent into OSM by using e.g.
access=private. Without such intent there is no need to put access
restrictions in place. Thats my case with "On the ground" and "Not every
driveway needs an access=private" - We want to have a 

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Lester Caine]

On 24/05/2020 23:45, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

There are also many roads signed as "No HGVs except for access." It
is tempting to tag them as "hgv=destination" but that doesn't cover
the case where you are allowed to follow that route for many miles
and make several turnoffs IF you "need access". The current
definition of "access=destination" doesn't allow routers to
distinguish between truly "first/last segment only" and "its fine if
you are going to/from this general area".

AFAIK this awaits solution, at least I am not aware about even a tag 
proposal.


A delivery driver following a drop list may have a drop on that road, 
and then go on to their next drop out of the other end of the road. In 
fact it may be that the road is impractical for the vehicle to turn 
around. The 'legal' restriction is to prevent lorries using it as a 
short cut through a residential or similar area and physically it is 
perfectly practical for the biggest legal vehicle. The router can simple 
avoid that road if there is no stop on it, but the tagging should 
ADDITIONALLY indicate if it is physically possible to get the vehicle to 
the destination so obstructions such as tight corner, overhanging 
buildings, weight restrictions and the like will prevent some of the 
examples of lorries blindly following their sat nav without their brains 
in gear? It is the routers problem to pick the best route, which may be 
to approach the destination from the other end and perhaps even indicate 
'back up to destination' ... now that WOULD be an intelligent router ... 
but if there is no information on which to base that decision even the 
driver has to guess.


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 5/25/20 00:36, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> The default motor_vehicle=* of Norwegian forest roads [1] by law [2] depends 
> on physical criteria such as tracktype=*, surface=*, smoothness=*, width=*. 
> The law makes this a judgement call in each and every case. [3]

Same with cycling in forests in some parts of Germany, I think that
legally it automatically becomes bicycle=no if width<2m but there's
often discussions about just how much of the way needs to be <2m to make
it off limits for cyclists.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Arne Johannessen]

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.


I disagree with moving the Table Of Contents far from the top of the page. I 
use it for quick access to the individual chapters, and am having a hard time 
finding it quickly. I think that especially on a page as long and complex as 
this one, it's important that the TOC is at the top of the page, right before 
the first header.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=1994648=1994635


See also Wikipedia MOS:LEAD:
| 
| As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no
| more than four well-composed paragraphs [...]


-- 
Arne Johannessen





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Arne Johannessen]

On 25 May 2020, at 01:45, Mateusz Konieczny via talk  
wrote:
> May 25, 2020, 00:36 by a...@thaw.de:
>> 
>> I would argue that non-gated driveways are often closer to 
>> access=destination than they are to access=private.
>> 
>> According to the wiki, private requires individual permission, which I can't 
>> give to the mailman / delivery person, but I still want them to make their 
>> deliveries on my doorstep.
> I would describe delivery part as
> 
> "I have given individual permission to delivery person by requesting delivery"

Not all deliveries are actively requested, and the delivery person can't know 
if you requested it or not. Therefore, access=private as a _default_ for 
driveways seems wrong to me.


> Random person driving to my house and trying to sell me random items would
> not be covered by such permission and unwanted and violating access rules,
> right?
> 
> Such peddler would be allowed by access=destination (any non-transit
> traffic allowed).

Exactly. In the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, such traffic is in fact 
generally allowed on driveways.

However, some driveways are behind a locked gate or clearly signed as "private 
/ no trespassing" (which is legally equivalent in some jurisdictions). Such 
cases should qualify for an _explicit_ access=private tag. Delivery to your 
doorstep might then be impossible, unless there's like a bell at the gate that 
can be used by the delivery person to obtain individual permission.

So, access=private for driveways is not necessarily wrong, it's but probably 
somewhat rare.

Your new language about this on the access=* page seems fine to me:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=1994851#Road_with_restricted_access

FWIW, I'm less happy with the current state of the access=private page. But I'm 
not sure if consensus exists to clarify it.


-- 
Arne Johannessen



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 25, 2020, 00:36 by a...@thaw.de:

>> Is access=private supposed to be incorrect in either case?
>>
>
> I would argue that non-gated driveways are often closer to access=destination 
> than they are to access=private.
>
> According to the wiki, private requires individual permission, which I can't 
> give to the mailman / delivery person, but I still want them to make their 
> deliveries on my doorstep.
>
I would describe delivery part as

"I have given individual permission to delivery person by requesting delivery"

Random person driving to my house and trying to sell me random items would
not be covered by such permission and unwanted and violating access rules,
right?

Such peddler would be allowed by access=destination (any non-transit
traffic allowed).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 25, 2020, 00:45 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

>
> May 24, 2020, 23:54 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>
>>
>> On 2020-05-24 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction?
>>>  
>>>
>> In the UK there are many small roads signed as "Unsuitable for HGVs." 
>> Legally you are allowed to drive your 44T truck down there, but you will 
>> almost certainly get stuck. How do we tell the router?
>>
> hgv=discouraged - covered by > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
>
> "usage is officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). 
> Only if marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise)."
>
I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:hgv%3Ddiscouraged 

Searching this term on wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=Unsuitable+for+HGVs=Special%3ASearch=Go
now finds this page.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 24, 2020, 23:57 by f...@zz.de:

> At least thats very different in Germany. There is no such thing as
> "Stand your ground" in the US legalese. As long as you dont show
> clear intend of "out of bounds" e.g. fences, gates or signage
> its not a federal offense to walk on private property. You may
> still be sent away, ignoring THAT is a federal offense, but until
> then there its no legal offense to step on private property.
>
So it is about a road that is without "no entry" signs, not marked 
as privately owned, without gate/chain etc?

Tagging it as access=private seems wrong.

> (See §123 StGB - https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/123.html)
>
>> >  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.
>>
> So we tag stuff people are assumed to ignore? We should fix tagging
> to make it distinguishable.
>
Depends on your usecase - for routing you may want to inrerpret
access=private on final approach differently.

It may be valuable info for example for a renderer.

But what you want to distinguish here?

"owner has locked gate but orders pizza often, will open gate for delivery" from
"owner has locked gate and never orders deliveries"?

I am probably missing something.

>> > 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?
>>
>
> Its indistinguishable - Thats the problem. A private on a driveway
> is definitly something which is not verifyable in most cases
>
Why it is not verifiable?

(it may be a cultural difference, in Poland driveway with restricted 
access will have a gate or at least a sign, it is not a driveway with restricted
access otherwise)

> > 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.
>>
>
> For me a service is by itself not for the general public as the service
> article already states. Tagging it with driveway does make it even less
> public. It will be not used as through road anyway.
>
I may be a bit unusual here but it is often not true for cyclists and hikers.
They often use serice roads (even driveway segments) that are not private, that 
is why 
distinguishing between driveway accessible to general public and
restricted one is important for me.

For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240494343#map=19/50.06452/19.92326
(driveway into an university area, signed as living_street is a part of 
alternative route for
cyclists allowing to skip dual carriageway with heavy trafffic)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174699639#map=19/49.26939/19.98083
service road (correctly tagged) carrying hiking trails and almost
certainly incorrectly tagged as inaccessible for pedestrians
( https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2205168 ).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/714080089#map=19/49.28399/20.00194
correctly tagged driveway, serving as public wheelchair accessible path
toward major tourism attraction (correctly tagged as without access
restrictions
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplica_Naj%C5%9Bwi%C4%99tszego_Serca_Jezusa_w_Jaszczur%C3%B3wce#/media/Plik:Kaplica_Jaszczurowka.jpg)


> So there is a difference between a driveway with and without any signs, gates 
> or
> fences. If not globally than at least for Germany.
>
Yes, also in Poland there are driveways without any access restrictions
and ones that are restricted to private access and some with more exotic ones.

>
> So in case this is very different to Poland i would suggest removing the
> driveway from the access examples alltogether and make it a local
> issue.
>
Is it still needed? I made some edits to try to avoid confusion of 
"private road, as in restricted access" and "private road, as in privately 
owned" 
as privately owned roads may be open and publicly owned may be restricted.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:39:11AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> > Legally this is broken. Legally you may not enter the zone when
> > your destination is not within that zone and there nothing like a 
> > distance based penalty within that area.
> > 
> > So yes - there is a problem - But not within tagging. Its something
> > routers need to solve.
> 
> Routers cannot work alone, they have to work together with the tagging.
> It's not fair to claim it's all their problem. If the tagging does not
> represent the nuances required, the router should not be expected to
> just guess (at least where the difference is between legal and illegal).

Dont get me wrong - If there is information missing to distinguish
cases i am happy to find new tags/ways to describe them.

For a destination case routers need to take that step.

If there is a grid of roads all connect each other and all of them are
destination its basically a subgraph which you pay a penalty to enter.
Its not a "per distance" penalty which it is currently for the ones
i am using/testing regularly. 

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 24, 2020, 23:54 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-05-24 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
>
>> Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction?
>>  
>>
> In the UK there are many small roads signed as "Unsuitable for HGVs." Legally 
> you are allowed to drive your 44T truck down there, but you will almost 
> certainly get stuck. How do we tell the router?
>
hgv=discouraged - covered by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

"usage is officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). 
Only if marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise)."


> There are also many roads signed as "No HGVs except for access." It is 
> tempting to tag them as "hgv=destination" but that doesn't cover the case 
> where you are allowed to follow that route for many miles and make several 
> turnoffs IF you "need access". The current definition of "access=destination" 
> doesn't allow routers to distinguish between truly "first/last segment only" 
> and "its fine if you are going to/from this general area".
>

AFAIK this awaits solution, at least I am not aware about even a tag proposal.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-25 00:16, Florian Lohoff wrote:

> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:54:02PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: On 2020-05-24 
> 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> 
> Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction? 
> In the UK there are many small roads signed as "Unsuitable for HGVs."
> Legally you are allowed to drive your 44T truck down there, but you will
> almost certainly get stuck. How do we tell the router?

width? maxwidth? 

It needs to be a physical attribute, not a purely legal one. It could be
a combination of road width and bends, or undulations giving a risk of
grounding. For the former, the router would need accurate geometry info
(centre line and width) which is often not present or not reliable in
OSM. For the latter, do we have anything for "risk of grounding due to
dips and humps"? 

> It a different attribute than legalese which makes it unsuitable - so
> tag it appropriate.
> 
> There are also many roads signed as "No HGVs except for access." It is
> tempting to tag them as "hgv=destination" but that doesn't cover the
> case where you are allowed to follow that route for many miles and make
> several turnoffs IF you "need access". The current definition of
> "access=destination" doesn't allow routers to distinguish between truly
> "first/last segment only" and "its fine if you are going to/from this
> general area". 
> Discussion here shows the  
> http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5=140446
> Thats a technical difficulty in the OSM Data model which may fill pages.
> 
> At least in Germany a restriction sign is not a "linear restriction"
> e.g. is restricting the whole way. Instead you may not traverse the
> point of the sign. We are currently unable to put this into OSM.
> 
> A workaround is to put 2 short oneways on top of each other - one of
> them carrying the restriction - which is in itself a pretty ugly
> solution - and - this does not work for destination.
> 
> There are other problems. A destination technically is currently solved
> by increasing the "cost" in the routing graph. So for example for
> every meter on a destination road you may travel 20m on others. Which
> most of the time works pretty well in avoiding the destination roads.
> It has pretty bad side effects which causes the router to try to send
> you out of the destination area with the shortest way even producing
> very long diverts around.

You talk as if all routers are the same I accept that such
heuristics are inevitable to choose between multiple possibilities, but
proposing a route that would actually be considered illegal should not
ever happen (subject to data currency considerations). 

But still, access=destination does not permit the router to apply
different penalties to the two cases I mentioned. 

> Legally this is broken. Legally you may not enter the zone when
> your destination is not within that zone and there nothing like a 
> distance based penalty within that area.
> 
> So yes - there is a problem - But not within tagging. Its something
> routers need to solve.

Routers cannot work alone, they have to work together with the tagging.
It's not fair to claim it's all their problem. If the tagging does not
represent the nuances required, the router should not be expected to
just guess (at least where the difference is between legal and illegal).___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Arne Johannessen]

Mateusz Konieczny via talk  wrote:
> 
> From quick review I am unable to remember any actually existing
> access restriction that would not be taggable.

The default motor_vehicle=* of Norwegian forest roads [1] by law [2] depends on 
physical criteria such as tracktype=*, surface=*, smoothness=*, width=*. The 
law makes this a judgement call in each and every case. [3]

I'm not aware of a useful way to tag this restriction, so I personally like to 
simply add those physical tags and leave the problem for interested data 
consumers to decide for themselves. A clear consensus on the tagging of forest 
roads does not seem to currently exist in the Norwegian OSM community.


[1] I use "forest road" as a loose translation of "veg i utmark", meaning 
something like "road not in towns or farmland". In OSM, they could be tagged as 
highway=track, service, residential, unclassified; depending on the 
circumstances.
[2] 
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/motor-traffic-on-uncultivated-land-and-i/id173402/
[3] in Norwegian, the government's interpretation of the law:
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokument/dep/kld/rundskriv/1996/t-196-motorferdsel-i-utmark/4/id278805/


> [nuclear power plants vs. residential driveways]
> 
> Is access=private supposed to be incorrect in either case?

I would argue that non-gated driveways are often closer to access=destination 
than they are to access=private.

According to the wiki, private requires individual permission, which I can't 
give to the mailman / delivery person, but I still want them to make their 
deliveries on my doorstep.


-- 
Arne Johannessen



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:54:02PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2020-05-24 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> 
> > Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction?
> 
> In the UK there are many small roads signed as "Unsuitable for HGVs."
> Legally you are allowed to drive your 44T truck down there, but you will
> almost certainly get stuck. How do we tell the router? 

width? maxwidth? 

It a different attribute than legalese which makes it unsuitable - so
tag it appropriate.

> There are also many roads signed as "No HGVs except for access." It is
> tempting to tag them as "hgv=destination" but that doesn't cover the
> case where you are allowed to follow that route for many miles and make
> several turnoffs IF you "need access". The current definition of
> "access=destination" doesn't allow routers to distinguish between truly
> "first/last segment only" and "its fine if you are going to/from this
> general area". 
> Discussion here shows the  
> http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5=140446 

Thats a technical difficulty in the OSM Data model which may fill pages.

At least in Germany a restriction sign is not a "linear restriction"
e.g. is restricting the whole way. Instead you may not traverse the
point of the sign. We are currently unable to put this into OSM.

A workaround is to put 2 short oneways on top of each other - one of
them carrying the restriction - which is in itself a pretty ugly
solution - and - this does not work for destination.

There are other problems. A destination technically is currently solved
by increasing the "cost" in the routing graph. So for example for
every meter on a destination road you may travel 20m on others. Which
most of the time works pretty well in avoiding the destination roads.
It has pretty bad side effects which causes the router to try to send
you out of the destination area with the shortest way even producing
very long diverts around.

Legally this is broken. Legally you may not enter the zone when
your destination is not within that zone and there nothing like a 
distance based penalty within that area.

So yes - there is a problem - But not within tagging. Its something
routers need to solve.

> And then there are all the subtle differences in the semantics of the
> vehicle classes, but that's a whole different can of worms...

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi Mateusz,

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:16:14PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> > 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).

Correct. But a closed and locked gate have (in germany and most likely
in most jurisdications) a legal impact which would justify an
access=private. And thats verifiable that a gate exists and is closed
for the public. If the Bell and the Postbox is at the gate - Perfect
case for access=private.

> 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".

But still in case of a zoned access restrictions i can look up the
boundarys and verify all entrys and exits to see if the zone is
valid and matches the signs.

> >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.

I have seen stuff like:

access=no
hgv=destination
goods=destination
motor_vehicle=destination
vehicle=destination
motorcycle=destination
motorcar=destination
foot=yes
bicycle=yes

Thats simply ridiculous to tag stuff like that. I once wrote an filter
to find the longest list of restrictions and you might be astonished
what people construct in there. People sometimes think of the more
they mention the better. I think its the opposite - the smaller the
better.

> > 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.

Okay - just a thought experiment to map the driveway/private into the 
space of the reality.

In OSM

- private -> "No one except some"
- permissive -> "All except some"

How do you expect your driveway to work, how do you expect way in a nuclear
power plant to work? Different isnt it? We both tag them private
following your examples.

In the NPP i expect NO ONE to walk there except people of the NPP with
their security background checks done, visitors to be escorted etc etc.

I'd expect my driveway to be permissive. Because i want some random
Postal Service to drive there, the Pizza Delivery, Friends, Family
and random visitors.

For me this is already included in service/driveway - nothing to do
there as its basically the same as destination in routing perspective
today. For the NPP private is perfectly valid.

> >  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).

At least thats very different in Germany. There is no such thing as
"Stand your ground" in the US legalese. As long as you dont show
clear intend of "out of bounds" e.g. fences, gates or signage
its not a federal offense to walk on private property. You may
still be sent away, ignoring THAT is a federal offense, but until
then there its no legal offense to step on private property.
(See §123 StGB - https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/123.html)

> >  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.

So we tag stuff people are assumed to ignore? We should fix tagging
to make it distinguishable.

> > 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?

Its indistinguishable - Thats the problem. A private on a driveway
is definitly something which is not verifyable in most cases,
whereas the gate in the NPP is. In case of the NPP its a physical
restriction, in case of the driveway its 

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-24 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

> Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction?

In the UK there are many small roads signed as "Unsuitable for HGVs."
Legally you are allowed to drive your 44T truck down there, but you will
almost certainly get stuck. How do we tell the router? 

There are also many roads signed as "No HGVs except for access." It is
tempting to tag them as "hgv=destination" but that doesn't cover the
case where you are allowed to follow that route for many miles and make
several turnoffs IF you "need access". The current definition of
"access=destination" doesn't allow routers to distinguish between truly
"first/last segment only" and "its fine if you are going to/from this
general area". 
Discussion here shows the  
http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5=140446 

And then there are all the subtle differences in the semantics of the
vehicle classes, but that's a whole different can of worms...___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Sorry, probably I could reduce number of edits.

But note that you can collapse multiple edits into one -
after opening specific page and clicking on "view history"
you will be taken to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=history

There are two columns of round radio buttons, you can select any revision
as to be the initial one using left button (for example just before I started 
editiing)
and right one to the final one (for example latest revision)
and click "compare selected revisions".

It will show you all edits between this revisions merged into one, for example
currently it will be
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccess=revision=1994830=1994557

May 24, 2020, 14:39 by davefoxfa...@btinternet.com:

> As you done it over (far too) many edits, could you provide acomparison 
> list of amendments here. 
>  
>  DaveF.
>   
>  
> On 24/05/2020 11:10, 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 intagging discussions.Thanks to Malenki and Seventy7 for suggesting 
>> it (in 2009 and 2010 respectively).
>>
>> ___talk mailing list>> 
>> talk@openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> For me its missing at least 2 points:
> 
> - The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and
>   verifyable.
> - To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible.

I put these in - I rephrased the pretty strong "You dont need any
ground truth" to - "We should follow ground truth and not introduce
guesswork" which is in clear line with OSM Best Common Practices.

And i rephrased the driveway private road to make it explcitly that
not all driveways need an access=private, just if there is a clear
intent of the legal entity e.g. owner to make it out of bounds.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:50:19PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2020-05-24 20:47, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 
> > - The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and
> > verifyable.
> 
> It is sufficient to say "verifiable". It does not always need to be
> evidenced by a visible sign - as long as another independent mapper
> could (easily) verify its truth. The fact that (in many countries) speed
> limits and parking rules change when you enter a settlement means that
> these attributes are verifiable without there needing to be an explicit
> sign. 

But these are basically "legal rules" you may find somewhere. I am fine
with that. I am not fine with guesswork. 

"I think the owner allows bicycles but not cars" 

without any hint of this really beeing the case. You'll open up
a huge can of worms if suddenly access tags are not reliable but
some Jo mappers guesswork.

> > So - people try to overload the meaning of access=private
> > with something more like ownership=private.
> 
> Access=private always means you have no "right" of access, and must keep
> out unless you have permission from the appropriate authority (be that
> the owner of a driveway or the operator of a nuclear power station).
> That permission can be explicit (a permit or invitation) or implicit
> (delivery drivers etc). Routers frequently apply different rules for the
> first and last segments of a route, blocking routing over "private"
> roads in the body of the route but not hesitating to use them if they
> are the only way to access the start and destination locations.

I had the phrasing in our German discussion already. In routing
you are either

Allowed to use a way
Not allowed to use the way
Allowed to use the way at the tail/head of a route

What is access=private? And if you answer "it depends" - On what
does it depend and how does the software know? And how does the
software distinguish between ways in a nuclear power plant and
a driveway?

access=private is mostly excluded for everything for good reasons. 

For a driveway marking it as service/driveway is everything you need.
It has penaltys so its basically the same as destination. If you add
a private to a driveway you change the routing availability
from destination to no.

And i dont think this is what most owners of a driveway would expect.
If they dont want people on their driveway by all means the'll put up
signs or barriers which is common in some areas of the world.

I definitly would be angry if some random mapper adds a access=private
to my 1.5km driveway (Which i have) because i want people to be able
to reach my house. I had this and it caused 15km+ diverts for people
relying on OSM.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-24 20:47, Florian Lohoff wrote:

> - The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and
> verifyable.

It is sufficient to say "verifiable". It does not always need to be
evidenced by a visible sign - as long as another independent mapper
could (easily) verify its truth. The fact that (in many countries) speed
limits and parking rules change when you enter a settlement means that
these attributes are verifiable without there needing to be an explicit
sign. 

> So - people try to overload the meaning of access=private
> with something more like ownership=private.

Access=private always means you have no "right" of access, and must keep
out unless you have permission from the appropriate authority (be that
the owner of a driveway or the operator of a nuclear power station).
That permission can be explicit (a permit or invitation) or implicit
(delivery drivers etc). Routers frequently apply different rules for the
first and last segments of a route, blocking routing over "private"
roads in the body of the route but not hesitating to use them if they
are the only way to access the start and destination locations.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

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.
- To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible.

From my experience access restrictions are currently the most
problematic issue concerning routing. People mix in a lot
of stuff like ownership, legal, physical and "emotional" aspects
to tag access restrictions. This causes a lot of harm to reachability
of addresses.

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. I dont
think thats a good idea as it makes the driveway and the area
of the nuclear power plant indistinguishable. 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,
which automatically makes them ignore the power plants service
as well. 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.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. May 2020, at 12:16, 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.


it’s a lot of text, are you sure it improves the page to add extensive prose 
examples? I have for example noted you write about “private road” as if it 
would imply access controlled road, while the same term is commonly used also 
for roads in private ownership (but with public access rights). The  example in 
this case  seems to add more to the confusion than it removes.

Cheers Martin 



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Alexey Zakharenkov]

24.05.2020, 15:42, "Dave F via talk" :As you done it over (far too) many edits, could you provide a comparison list of amendments here.DaveF. DaveF,simply compare latest article versions (about 13 edits by Mateusz made on may 24) :https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccess=revision=1994688=1994557 It looks pretty like a comparison list of amendments. BR, Alexey On 24/05/2020 11:10, 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).

 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
,___talk mailing listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Andrew Harvey]

More examples are very helpful, so than you, but in my opinion the examples
should go near the end, at least after the specification (so list of
transport modes and possible values)

1. Introduction (as exists)
2. Full list of transport modes
3. List of possible values
4. Examples

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 20:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> 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).
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Dave F via talk]

As you done it over (far too) many edits, could you provide a comparison 
list of amendments here.


DaveF.

On 24/05/2020 11:10, 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).


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

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).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk