Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[Bradley White]

>
>  If you drive into a checkerboard
> area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs at the
> limits of private land.
>

In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly frequently with
small yellow property markers at the boundaries.

Privately owned land within a NF declared boundary is not under any
protection by the USFS, therefore tagging the administrative boundary as
'protected_area' will lead to inaccuracies. The land areas that are
actually protected from development/have active resource management are
only the lands which the federal government owns within these
administrative boundaries.

I think using the administrative boundaries is a good & practical first
approximation, but the goal should eventually to be to change over to the
actual land owned by the Fed and operated for conservation by the USFS.

>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[stevea]

Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> They're both 'legal' boundaries. 
(and more).

Thank you, Kevin.  Finally, this is written in a manner that allows me to 
understand it and I do now.  Whew!

THEN, there is how OSM might ultimately remedy this (by specifying — good 
example wiki diagrams can go miles here — mapping the "simple outer" with an 
"outer" role?) and how Carto (and its authors) remedy this as it renders.  
These remain to be seen.  It's messy, but we do get closer talking about it 
here.  It appears there are some forests which denote "legislative outer" with 
"outer" role and other forests which denote an outer role of land which is 
ACTUALLY federally owned (a smaller area, contained wholly inside of the first 
kind, the could-be-national-forest-without-more-legislation kind).

OSM must specify correct / preferred tagging if we keep both kinds of 
multipolygons (MPs) in our data (I prefer the latter, as the tags in the 
polygon "do apply").  We may also coin a new flavor of MP (it would still BE a 
MP, but perhaps with special tagging, special rendering, or both) for such 
national forests in the USA to better characterize the "dual nature" of this 
odd "sort of" ownership:  an "outer-outer" of "legislative possibility of 
ownership."  But maybe that's not required:  a wiki page describing this and 
the tagging required on one or two MPs could do it, I think.

In my mind, now that these are quite distinct, it seems a straightforward 
solution is two MPs, maybe linked somehow (one a super-relation containing the 
other?).  The first MP might be the (larger) "legislatively-defined outer-role 
possibly-owned 'limit without additional legislation.'"   The second MP might 
be the (smaller) "actually owned, tagged outer-role, plus punched-out 
inner-role inholdings."  Those quoted descriptions can be sharpened up, but I 
hope the idea is clear.

Then, maybe some logic is built into Carto (maybe not, it may not be 
necessary).  Then, we document this well in wiki (explaining as Kevin did, as I 
understand now clear-as-crystal, I believe others will, too).  Then, we discuss 
whether there might be a harmonization of data across the country.  Then (as 
usual, the final act, please pass the popcorn), we watch our hard work render.  
And applaud.

With Kevin and Joseph talking, this feels like it can get solved!

Thanks for putting on thinking caps and typing words carefully,
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Joseph Eisenberg]

But the Forest Service itself is showing the outer boundary on it's
websites, as I've mentioned above. On the higher resolution web map, there
is only a faint difference in lighter green / darker green color to show
which land within the official boundary is privately or federally owned,
and this distinction is not even mentioned in the map legend:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/klamath/maps-pubs/?cid=fseprd533703=full


And my experience is that only the outermost boundary has official signs
saying "entering Klamath National Forest". If you drive into a checkerboard
area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs at the
limits of private land.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 4:36 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:11 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which
>> is preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
>> shared between two outer rings?
>>
>> However, I also want to note that it is not clear to me that the new
>> mapping is correct.
>>
>> The new outer boundaries for the Superior National Forest are very
>> complex and only cover a small portion of the land within the National
>> Forest outer boundary:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11558095
>>
>> Compare the official National Forest web map:
>> https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=03a17ac9df1a4cd0bcc872ac996e7231
>> - this matches the older, simpler boundary that was in OpenStreetMap
>> previously. Also see this map on the Forest website:
>> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5130373.pdf
>>
>> It appears that the new, complex relation is attempting to map what land
>> is owned by the Federal government, rather than mapping the legal boundary
>> of the National Forest. Is that correct?
>>
>> I believe this is a misinterpretation of the meaning of
>> boundary=protected_area.
>>
>
> They're both 'legal' boundaries.
>
> The simple outer boundary of a National Forest is 'the area in which the
> Forest Service is authorized to purchase land without a new Act of Congress
> expanding the forest.'  It's not signed in the field and has very little
> effect upon the actual land management. It's generally all that the
> enabling act of Congress specifies; the rest is done by having the law
> authorize the Executive Branch to determine the status of parcels within
> the legislated boundary.
>
> The outer boundary also generally excludes all 'inholdings' - private
> holdings that are enclosed by the national forest.
>
> It gives a more pleasant rendering at low zoom levels while still giving a
> sense of where the National Forest is, but does not reflect the situation
> in the field.
>
> The 'patchwork quilt' area is the area actually owned by the Federal
> Government and administered by the Forest Service. It's normally what will
> be posted in the field, and it's the area that actually enjoys the
> protection.
>
> For many Federally-administered land areas, there's also a third category:
> land on which the Federal government owns a conservation easement
> (essentially, the right to develop the land) but the land ownership (the
> right to exclude others) is private. There are huge pieces of wildlife
> refuges where Uncle Sam owns the hunting and development rights, but some
> farmer or forester owns and works the land.
>
> Most people in the general public would recognize only the most
> restrictive definition in the field, since that is what's signed. A duck
> hunter would look at an official map to see which of the private parcels
> comprising a wildlife refuge are open to the public for hunting in season.
> Very few people except the real estate lawyers care about the outermost
> boundary, except to give something that can yield a readable rendering on
> small-scale maps.
>
> I'm all for making the boundary follow the legal designation that has the
> greatest effect and is visibly signed.
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:11 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which
> is preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
> shared between two outer rings?
>
> However, I also want to note that it is not clear to me that the new
> mapping is correct.
>
> The new outer boundaries for the Superior National Forest are very complex
> and only cover a small portion of the land within the National Forest outer
> boundary:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11558095
>
> Compare the official National Forest web map:
> https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=03a17ac9df1a4cd0bcc872ac996e7231
> - this matches the older, simpler boundary that was in OpenStreetMap
> previously. Also see this map on the Forest website:
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5130373.pdf
>
> It appears that the new, complex relation is attempting to map what land
> is owned by the Federal government, rather than mapping the legal boundary
> of the National Forest. Is that correct?
>
> I believe this is a misinterpretation of the meaning of
> boundary=protected_area.
>

They're both 'legal' boundaries.

The simple outer boundary of a National Forest is 'the area in which the
Forest Service is authorized to purchase land without a new Act of Congress
expanding the forest.'  It's not signed in the field and has very little
effect upon the actual land management. It's generally all that the
enabling act of Congress specifies; the rest is done by having the law
authorize the Executive Branch to determine the status of parcels within
the legislated boundary.

The outer boundary also generally excludes all 'inholdings' - private
holdings that are enclosed by the national forest.

It gives a more pleasant rendering at low zoom levels while still giving a
sense of where the National Forest is, but does not reflect the situation
in the field.

The 'patchwork quilt' area is the area actually owned by the Federal
Government and administered by the Forest Service. It's normally what will
be posted in the field, and it's the area that actually enjoys the
protection.

For many Federally-administered land areas, there's also a third category:
land on which the Federal government owns a conservation easement
(essentially, the right to develop the land) but the land ownership (the
right to exclude others) is private. There are huge pieces of wildlife
refuges where Uncle Sam owns the hunting and development rights, but some
farmer or forester owns and works the land.

Most people in the general public would recognize only the most restrictive
definition in the field, since that is what's signed. A duck hunter would
look at an official map to see which of the private parcels comprising a
wildlife refuge are open to the public for hunting in season. Very few
people except the real estate lawyers care about the outermost boundary,
except to give something that can yield a readable rendering on small-scale
maps.

I'm all for making the boundary follow the legal designation that has the
greatest effect and is visibly signed.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which is
preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
shared between two outer rings?

However, I also want to note that it is not clear to me that the new
mapping is correct.

The new outer boundaries for the Superior National Forest are very complex
and only cover a small portion of the land within the National Forest outer
boundary:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11558095

Compare the official National Forest web map:
https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=03a17ac9df1a4cd0bcc872ac996e7231
- this matches the older, simpler boundary that was in OpenStreetMap
previously. Also see this map on the Forest website:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5130373.pdf

It appears that the new, complex relation is attempting to map what land is
owned by the Federal government, rather than mapping the legal boundary of
the National Forest. Is that correct?

I believe this is a misinterpretation of the meaning of
boundary=protected_area.

See images at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4198#issuecomment-684084296
for another example with the Manistee National Forest, which used to be
mapped in a much simpler fashion and now has been re-made as many smaller
parcels.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 4:22 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Paul,
> I don't have a definitive answer for you, but rendering usually takes a
> while for large areas. I would expect it to render when zoomed in but
> wasn't able to see any rendering on a couple of spot checks. I did notice
> that around islands either the forest or the island, are shifted. I would
> recommend cleaning those up.
>
> Clifford
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 1:19 PM Paul White  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I recently added the (super complicated) Superior National Forest
>> boundary to OSM, because I noticed it was missing. However, it refuses to
>> render on the standard map, even though I ran it through JOSM's validator
>> with no problems. (link to relation)
>>  I
>> don't think it's due to the amount of members, because the Tongass National
>> Forest I added recently, with over 10,000 members, renders fine. And I know
>> it's not due to the tags on the relation; they are standard to other
>> national forests.
>>
>> If someone could look into it and see what's causing it to break, that
>> would be great.
>>
>> pj
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking structure as damaged or condemned

[Jmapb via Talk-us]

On 8/5/2020 9:11 PM, Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us wrote:

Tropical Storm Isaias left several homes in my neighborhood severely damaged 
and condemned.  Is there a proper way to map these structures?

Thanks,
Eric


Hi Eric, I've used building=ruins (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=ruins ) for situations
like this where the building in still present but observably no longer
functioning as a building.

Pros:
 - Documented in the wiki.
 - Supported by iD.
 - Building will still render on the default map.

Cons:
 - Information about building type, if it wasn't simply building=yes,
will be lost (thought it would be in the history of course, and could
still be added via another tag, eg, was:building=house.)
 - Some people have a slightly more romantic understanding of the word
"ruins" that doesn't include recently-condemned buildings.
 - Some people consider a lifecycle prefix like abandoned:building=yes
to be more elegant.
 - Don't tag for the renderer!

Regardless of the tag you choose, I agree with Dave that adding
something like "note=building ruined August 2020 by Hurricane Isaias,
currently condemned" would assist any armchair mappers using previous
years' imagery.

Good luck & stay safe, Jason


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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 07:00 2020-08-30, Greg Troxel đã viết:

What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked
access=private on the map?  yes, driving on is usually technically not
illegal, but unless you are going there because you were invited for
have a reason they'd approve of, it's basically not ok.


I expressed support for the proposed mechanical edit because the 
distinctions being debated in this thread didn't factor into the 
workflow that originally added these access=private tags. All the posted 
driveways I've mapped are now tagged identically to every other 
driveway. Lesson learned: I should map the posting distinction more 
explicitly in the future, such as using traffic_sign=*. But if I map an 
adjacent traffic_sign=* feature while leaving the way's access=* set to 
the same value as every other driveway, that still strikes me as a bit 
of a trap for data consumers. Access is too important to simply coin an 
ad-hoc tag for without having data consumers on board.



If you object to pink dots on driveways, I'd say that access=private is
what is expected so the renderer should be fixed to not show that and
show other access values.


The status quo ante had been that most driveways lacked an access tag. 
Unlike with highway=residential or whatnot, I don't think there was much 
of an end user expectation that driveways in general would indicate 
restricted access. I don't think people were likely to have stumbled 
upon these driveways just because they lacked a dotted pattern on a map.


Meanwhile, from a routing standpoint, these blanket access=private tags 
are problematic. For example, OSRM tries to snap an origin or 
destination waypoint to a roadway to avoid returning no route. [1] 
However, this snapping only takes the road topography into account and 
can unfortunately snap across barriers such as fences, ravines, and 
railroad tracks. Overuse of access=private exacerbates this problem by 
forcing the router to snap even greater distances to a public road. [2] 
Most property owners would prefer that you use their driveway as you 
leave their property instead of making a beeline dash for the nearest 
public road across their petunias.


I favor stripping the access tags from the Amazon-tagged driveways (not 
all driveways) and starting over. Going forward, we can document the 
reasons for a driveway's access tag on a case by case basis by mapping 
things like gates and no trespassing signs.



A further issue we haven't talk about:

  How much detail is ok on residential property, from a privacy
  viewpoint?  Is mapping of "no trespassing signs" going too far?

We show structures, and we show driveways.  These don't feel invasive
given imagery.  They are very useful for navigation, particularly with
long driveways.   We don't map much else.

To me, marking individual driveways about whether they have a no
trespassing sign or not, is a bit much.  It feels a bit dangerous, in
terms of getting it wrong and expectations.  Yes, you can see them from
the road, but still.

I also don't think it's all that useful.  When you are going somewhere,
you need to pay attention, regardless of the map.  And you know why you
are going, and if you have some kind of permission, and we are not going
to automate that.


No trespassing signs seem more useful to map than front yard flagpoles 
and backyard swimming pools, but I map those already.


A couple scenarios to consider:

* An office building has a small parking lot and a sign at the driveway 
that says, "Private property -- Enter driveway by appointment only". [3] 
To me, this driveway would be a natural case for access=private. One 
could argue that it's customers who would be making the appointments, 
thus access=customers on both the driveway and parking lot, but that 
would be indistinguishable from the great many strip mall parking lots 
with "Customer Parking Only" signs that we tag as access=customers. As 
far as I know, no router uses the accessibility of a parking lot to 
decide whether the driveway that leads to it is also accessible.


* A homeowner is the victim of a county GIS database that erroneously 
extended their narrow driveway up a hill to connect to a large 
subdivision. Apparently large vehicles have attempted to use the 
driveway as a shortcut, only to have trouble backing out. Before the 
owner installed a gate out of desperation, they tried posting a no 
trespassing sign. They also tried repeatedly to edit OpenStreetMap, 
going as far as to delete their driveway, thinking it would influence 
drivers. [4] I think it's safe to say that any owner who posts a no 
trespassing sign would appreciate OSM respecting that sign. Granted, it 
would be less clear-cut if the sign bears a facetious message. (There 
are many examples in Google Image Search.)


[1] 
https://blog.mapbox.com/robust-navigation-with-smart-nearest-neighbor-search-dbc1f6218be8

[2] https://f.zz.de/posts/201910152010.access_private_on_driveways/
[3] 

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> 31 Aug 2020, 10:12 by frede...@remote.org:
>
> And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here"
> is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With
> that reasoning, someone with a personal low bar for "great views" could
> plaster the map with tourism=viewpoint.
>
> "Only places signed as viewpoint"
> would remove valuable data in Poland,
> and solving problem that AFAIK is not
> existing. At least in places where I visited
> (except rare cases).
>

There isn't a lot of signage on most of the trails I hike. Eliminating
unsigned viewpoints would impoverish the map.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 8:52 AM Russell Nelson  wrote:
> Maybe the problem is the name of the tag? Tag names can be misleading.
> They aren't just metadata.
They aren't *just* metadata, but we have a long history of enshrining
misleading tags by usage. (*cough* amenity=prison *cough*) Rather than
getting into fine and subjective distinctions about whether a viewpoint is
'intended' for tourism, I'm willing to accept that the existing tagging
simply announces 'there's a view' here and use access tagging to indicate
whether enjoying the view is invited, controlled, deprecated, or forbidden.

For those who claim that 'off-limits attractions should not be mapped' I
offer a few corner cases, to try to establish the contours of what we're
talking about.

OFF TRAIL, LAWFUL, UNSIGNED

(1) There's a ledge (that I've not mapped) between Balsam Cap and Friday
Mountain near https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/41.9810/-74.3610 that
offers a superb view of the Ashokan Valley and eastward as far as the
mountains of northwestern Connecticut and western Massachusetts.  It's well
known to local hikers. It's in a wilderness area. No trail serves it, and
there is no signage. Off-trail hiking is permitted in the area in question,
but hikers are cautioned to avoid the inadvertent creation of 'herd paths'
(=='use paths', 'social trails', ...).  Local trail maps (from New York/New
Jersey Trail Conference, Appalachian Mountain Club, National Geographic)
show the viewpoint.  Should we? I've refrained, but I also wouldn't delete
it if someone else were to map it.  (I personally mostly try to follow the
guidelines in https://www.trailgroove.com/issue36.html?autoflip=61. I'm
less afraid of my personal writing or posting of photos having a terrible
impact, since I don't have nearly Paul's following, but I've taken to being
more circumspect after reading that article and the blog posts that led up
to it, and I recognize that mapping on OSM might have a disproportionately
greater risk.)

Map, or not map?

OFF TRAIL, QUASI--LAWFUL, UNSIGNED

(2) There are several ghost towns and ruins of abandoned 19th-century
industry in Harriman State Park.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4080499 There are several guidebooks
that describe them in some detail.  Hiking off-trail in that park is
formally prohibited. Nevertheless, whenever I've visited one of the ranger
stations and asked something like, "would it be all right if I lead a party
of six to the Surebridge and Hogencamp mines starting from Lake
Skannatati?" the answer has been, "sure, have a good time!"

There has been exactly once that I was challenged by a policeman for
unlawful hiking, while coming onto a road from one of the old mine roads,
now grown to trees. I said, "Oh, sorry, when I asked at Tiorati Circle, the
desk corporal said it was all right."

He answered with a smile, 'OK, you're good!"

Essentially, the prohibition of off-trail hiking is because of the fact
that the area has lots of open mine shafts, cellar holes,
hundred-year-abandoned rusting mining equipment, and so on: quite dangerous
indeed if you aren't expecting them. It also gets a horde of novice hikers
from New York City and New Jersey. The combination could be deadly. The
solution is simply the weak 'security by obscurity' - if you know that
permission is routinely granted, you also are highly likely to know what
and where the hazards are.

To map the ruins, or not to map?

Another story from the same park, illustrating the overlap between
'permitted' and 'forbidden': There was one time I was going in on a Friday
evening for a winter backpack, and heard a ranger at the parking area
telling the couple ahead of me, "the park's closed!"

I was sufficiently puzzled that I stuck around until after they left, and
said to the ranger, "what's going on?"

He asked, "where were you headed?"

"I'm meeting some buddies up at the campsite on Fingerboard Mountain, and
we're planning to bum around on Saturday, make camp at West Mountain and
then hit the Bear Mountain Inn for Sunday brunch. I don't mind night-hiking
to Fingerboard, the reflective trail markers are easy to spot!"

He said, "oh, no problem, you go in!"

"Huh?"

"Oh, those two didn't have proper gear and had no clue where they were
going. You've obviously 

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Kevin Broderick]

First, I'd like to point out that this discussion started off with the
question of removing "access=private" from Amazon-logistics-mapped
driveways. I still maintain that the mechanical edit would be a good thing,
because the tagging as added is based on an assumption that
service=driveway implies access=private, which (a) isn't 100% accurate, and
(b) adds the appearance of more detail in the database without actually
adding any value (i.e. if it is a safe assumption, then adding the tag is
superfluous; if it isn't, then adding it is potentially misleading).

Second, I'd like to point out that there *are* driveways in New England
that are actually public right-of-ways.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19685143 is one such example; the
southernmost portion of the way is arguably service=driveway, except that
it is actually a public right-of-way that continues south,
eventually connecting to Lincoln Gap Road. While they are certainly the
exception and not the rule, the number of such setups in Vermont is
non-trivial due to the ancient roads laws there. There are probably some
similar cases in New Hampshire and possibly Maine, I believe, but I can't
cite any off the top of my head (the documentation of unmaintained
public-right-of-ways isn't as good as it is in Vermont, making things a bit
more murky).

Third, and back to the first point, I'd suggest that while this discussion
has teased out a lot of nuance about driveway access (and related social
norms and such), I don't think it's big stretch to say that while we don't
really have consensus on the implied access status for service=driveway in
a residential area, service=private isn't quite right (except when gated or
posted), which brings me back to my original thought: the mechanical edit
is a good thing to remove the appearance of greater certainty than we
actually have.

Fourth, related to the last question about whether or not it makes sense to
distinguish posted/not posted in the database: yes, knowing whether or not
driveways are posted and/or gated matters. Particularly when the
distinction between "minor, not-town-maintained road" and "driveway" is
murky on the ground (which is not uncommon in rural areas), knowing about
barriers and posted signs is rather helpful in route planning, especially
when not operating a motor vehicle (at least around here, state law
generally implies access=permissive in the absence of signage to the
contrary).

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:18 PM Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> A further issue we haven't talk about:
>
>   How much detail is ok on residential property, from a privacy
>   viewpoint?  Is mapping of "no trespassing signs" going too far?
>
> We show structures, and we show driveways.  These don't feel invasive
> given imagery.  They are very useful for navigation, particularly with
> long driveways.   We don't map much else.
>
> To me, marking individual driveways about whether they have a no
> trespassing sign or not, is a bit much.  It feels a bit dangerous, in
> terms of getting it wrong and expectations.  Yes, you can see them from
> the road, but still.
>
> I also don't think it's all that useful.  When you are going somewhere,
> you need to pay attention, regardless of the map.  And you know why you
> are going, and if you have some kind of permission, and we are not going
> to automate that.
>
> So to me, private_signed and private_unsigned, or whatever, are
> extremely close to the same thing.  I see signed or not as a minor
> detail, and I would prefer not to map it.  (But, I won't tell you not to
> map it.)
>
> I do object to a tagging scheme unless it has a tag appropriate for
> unsigned residential driveways that is viewed as not-really-wrong for
> driveways that happen to be signed.  I mean that in the sense that it
> isn't objectionable, not that it can't be refined.  Sort of like
> "building=yes" is not wrong but changing it to "building=barn" is
> better.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Greg Troxel]

A further issue we haven't talk about:

  How much detail is ok on residential property, from a privacy
  viewpoint?  Is mapping of "no trespassing signs" going too far?

We show structures, and we show driveways.  These don't feel invasive
given imagery.  They are very useful for navigation, particularly with
long driveways.   We don't map much else.

To me, marking individual driveways about whether they have a no
trespassing sign or not, is a bit much.  It feels a bit dangerous, in
terms of getting it wrong and expectations.  Yes, you can see them from
the road, but still.

I also don't think it's all that useful.  When you are going somewhere,
you need to pay attention, regardless of the map.  And you know why you
are going, and if you have some kind of permission, and we are not going
to automate that.

So to me, private_signed and private_unsigned, or whatever, are
extremely close to the same thing.  I see signed or not as a minor
detail, and I would prefer not to map it.  (But, I won't tell you not to
map it.)

I do object to a tagging scheme unless it has a tag appropriate for
unsigned residential driveways that is viewed as not-really-wrong for
driveways that happen to be signed.  I mean that in the sense that it
isn't objectionable, not that it can't be refined.  Sort of like
"building=yes" is not wrong but changing it to "building=barn" is
better.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Greg Troxel]

Matthew Woehlke  writes:

> On 31/08/2020 11.19, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> What I objected to was not "that is your opinion; many others disagree"
>> but "that is your opinion but *no one else* sees it that way".  If you
>> didn't really mean that, sorry for overreacting.
>
> Fair enough. I probably should have said something like "my
> understanding is that this is contrary to the community
> consensus". It's always possible that what appears *to me* to be the
> community consensus looks different to others.

Interpreting consensus is indeed very hard.

I think OSM has a general problem in this area, where

  there is discussion about something

  that leads to rough consensus for the range of situations in the
  discussion

  words are written down to describe this

  new situations arise

  people interpret the text to apply to the new situations, as if the
  text has some enormous standing, even though it describes consensus in
  different situations


So for example,  I'd agree that "access=private" generally means "only
with permission", but I don't think the original discussions that led to
it contemplated the folloeing notions:

  lack of no trespassing sign doesn't mean you 100% can't, so private
  isn't ok unless there is a sign.

  "only with permission" does not match "residential driveways are
  almost 'only with permission' with narrow social exceptions, so they
  are almost the same thing, far more than they are different" so
  private for an unsigned driveway is wrong.

I don't think either of those points would have been agreed on had they
come up in the discussion.  Thus I think we as a group overly
extrapolate from what we think was consensus.




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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 31/08/2020 11.19, Greg Troxel wrote:

What I objected to was not "that is your opinion; many others disagree"
but "that is your opinion but *no one else* sees it that way".  If you
didn't really mean that, sorry for overreacting.


Fair enough. I probably should have said something like "my 
understanding is that this is contrary to the community consensus". It's 
always possible that what appears *to me* to be the community consensus 
looks different to others.


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Greg Troxel]

Matthew Woehlke  writes:

> On 31/08/2020 10.54, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Matthew Woehlke writes:
>>> *You* may see it this way. The rest of the community does not.
>>
>> A declaration that every other member of the community disagrees is
>> unreasonable.
>
> I'm not sure if this is directed at me or at Mike. If at me, I'll
> point out that the fact we're having this conversation in the first
> place is because someone strongly disagrees with residential driveways
> being access=private "by default". Nor is it the first time I've
> encountered that opinion.
>
> Honestly, my initial opinion on the matter was closer to Mike's, but
> others told me I was wrong.

That's far more reasonable.  I think it's obvious that there is
disagreement, and it's also obvious that this is very difficult.

What I objected to was not "that is your opinion; many others disagree"
but "that is your opinion but *no one else* sees it that way".  If you
didn't really mean that, sorry for overreacting.

>>B) private shopping centers where the public is welcome, to shop.
>>(access=customers, mostly)
>>
>>C) private land where use is known acceptable (access=permissive)
>
> Even this is not clear. *My* understanding is that most businesses are
> closer to access=permissive, with access=customers referring more to
> places that are explicitly signed as "customers only". In most
> shopping centers, for example, it seems acceptable to go there just to
> walk around even with no intention of purchasing anything. (At least,
> I know that people do so...)

I agree this is tricky.I think the issue for unsigned shopping
centers and parking lots is:

  it is basically always ok to go there to shop (looking at things with
  the intention of maybe buying them)

  it is usually/sometimes ok to visit without intent to buy ("mall
  walking").  One can kind of view this as almost-customers as the mall
  more or less permits/encourages this in the hopes that people will buy
  things because they are there anyway.

  It is sometimes ok to just park there to go someplace else nearby, or
  leave a car for carpooling.  And sometimes not.

To me, permissive means "the landowner is known not to object to the
extent that this can be treated as access=yes, except that ther is no
explicit grant of permission and defintely no legally-enshrined right."
That's a far broader notion that a parking lot at a business without a
customers-only sign.  In that case, I think it's very much in the grey
area between prohibited and acceptable,   Permissive is a declartion
that it is accceptable.

So I would lean to marking lots and way at businesses as
access=customers normally, and wanting a tag to say that there is an
actual sign limiting this.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[stevea]

OnAugust 31, 2020 at 1:12:09 AM PDT, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> The same *will* happen to OSM; it is possible that today we can still
> get away with shenanigans like tagging a tourist attraction with "wink
> wink access=no but everybody goes there anyway"
...
>  But we won't be able
> to deny this responsibility forever, at least if we record our data in a
> way that can easily lead to misinterpretation.
> 
> And in my view, tagging something as "desirable to go there" via a
> tourism=* tag, no matter how many
> access=no/private/only_under_cover_of_darkness we add to that, that
> would be disingenious.

It seems part of the friction here is that we DO use the tourism key to denote 
a viewpoint.  While it is true that tourists love to go to a viewpoint and 
"take it all in," the logical converse of "all viewpoints are for tourists" is 
false:  I have enjoyed many viewpoints, entered them into OSM and I'm not a 
tourist, but a local hiker.  So as we say "tourism=viewpoint" this means 
exactly "viewpoint here."  Even if OSM is asked the direct question "Should 
tourists go here?" OSM is silent on the answer, because OSM doesn't say (at 
all) how our data "should" be used.  Our data are there to be used according to 
the terms of OSM's ODbL.  People with good judgement who see the trail to the 
place is tagged access=no might be quizzical, but they will select another 
place to hike.  People with bad judgement?  OSM isn't responsible for their 
decisions.  Let me repeat that:  OSM isn't responsible for users of its data 
exercising bad judgement.  We aren't doing anything illegal by entering data in 
our database, let's not kid ourselves.

One might call OSM's syntactical choice of "tourism=viewpoint" unfortunate, 
confusing, easy to misinterpret or even disingenuous, but two facts ARE true:  
1), this IS how we tag a viewpoint (though, with some effort, we could change 
this), 2), simply because we DO, this does not imply or encourage tourists (or 
anybody) to visit the site, especially if the path to get there is tagged 
access=no (based on the black-letter-law on the sign).

There is no winking going on (in my mind, in this example, or where I map).  In 
the case of Frederik's example website where (violence is incited?  murder is 
encouraged?) it is abused by bad actors, I don't believe the analogy holds:  
here, the incitement of violence or the encouragement of murder are violations 
of law.  (While we do have our First Amendment here, enshrining the right that 
at a federal level, no law prohibiting free speech shall be enacted, there are 
exceptions, these are some of them, and for good reasons).  If OSM mis-tags 
here or there (while largely well-tagging places which are "closed" or "no 
access") this is not deliberate, illegal "incitement" as the crime is defined 
(I am not an attorney), it is simply data entered in a database to aid 
navigation.  OSM does not claim to be error-free, and it does not (actively or 
passively) "encourage" any particular sort of behavior.  It simply states "what 
is" (in the real world, to the extent mappers have taken the time to accurately 
and with detail afforded by our syntax, which may be partial or relatively 
complete).

Frederik's example of the European mtb_scale tags is similar in that data in a 
database do not actively encourage anybody to exercise bad judgement.  Frederik 
might apply the same logic as "what the DWG typically does:"  simply add an 
access=no to the tags, leaving the mtb_scale tags intact.  Otherwise, we become 
redactors (deleters) of data dependent on our wholly subjective judgement of 
what "should belong" in a map, rather than "what is, in the real world, to a 
certain granularity of detail..." in a map.  That is censorship, always a 
ticklish topic in cartography and expressions of the real world by 
representations of it.  If this list (in another thread) wants to further 
discuss this difficult subject, we should, though we should while calling it a 
discussion of when, if, whether and how OSM contributors should censor data.

> And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here"
> is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With
> that reasoning, someone with a personal low bar for "great views" could
> plaster the map with tourism=viewpoint.

Such subjectivity is what makes OSM, um, interesting.  A highway=primary might 
be a fast four-lane road in North America or Europe, or a wide hard-packed 
track only suitable for high-clearance vehicles which can ford waterways in 
Africa or Australia.  "The right balance of how many viewpoints there are in 
this area of the map" seems like a local / regional decision.  Such 
subjectivity likely can't always (as in this case) come from a single 
definitive source or wiki entry, though wiki guidance about using good 
judgement USING subjective criteria can help.  I don't see as a major problem 
in OSM "we have too many viewpoints around here because of 

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Greg Troxel]

Mike Thompson  writes:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:46 AM Matthew Woehlke 
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>
>> > What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked
>> > access=private on the map?  yes, driving on is usually technically not
>> > illegal, but unless you are going there because you were invited for
>> > have a reason they'd approve of, it's basically not ok.
>>
>> The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood
>> meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what
>> you described above.
>
> Sounds like my driveway.  If you are using my driveway without my
> permission, either implicit (e.g. delivering a package) or explicit, I am
> going to ask you to leave.  I think you are conflating whether something is
> "not allowed" with "can be prosecuted as a crime."

Indeed.  When I look back at use without some kind of
permission/invitation, it's been (my categories):

OK and OKish:

  someone collecting petition/ballot signatures (semi-ok, depending, but
  clearly socially acceptable)

  neighbor bringing food as welcome-to-neighborhood visit

  neighbor bringing misdelivered package

  adjacent landowner coming to discuss something reasonable

  neighbor coming to say hello and talk about what happened in hurricane
  of 1938 since he ran home across the then-undeveloped land as the
  storm started.

  people trying to visit the next-door neighbor and going up the wrong
  driveway

not OK:

  proselytizers (not unlawful, sort of semi-ok socially -- really the
  edge of normal)

  people trying to sell things

and importantly doesn't include things like:

  people who are walking for exercise and decide to walk up to houses
  and back just for fun

  people teaching their kids to drive


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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 31/08/2020 10.54, Greg Troxel wrote:

Matthew Woehlke writes:

*You* may see it this way. The rest of the community does not.


A declaration that every other member of the community disagrees is
unreasonable.


I'm not sure if this is directed at me or at Mike. If at me, I'll point 
out that the fact we're having this conversation in the first place is 
because someone strongly disagrees with residential driveways being 
access=private "by default". Nor is it the first time I've encountered 
that opinion.


Honestly, my initial opinion on the matter was closer to Mike's, but 
others told me I was wrong.



   B) private shopping centers where the public is welcome, to shop.
   (access=customers, mostly)

   C) private land where use is known acceptable (access=permissive)


Even this is not clear. *My* understanding is that most businesses are 
closer to access=permissive, with access=customers referring more to 
places that are explicitly signed as "customers only". In most shopping 
centers, for example, it seems acceptable to go there just to walk 
around even with no intention of purchasing anything. (At least, I know 
that people do so...)


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 31/08/2020 10.18, Mike Thompson wrote:

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:46 AM Matthew Woehlke wrote:

The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood
meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what
you described above.


Sounds like my driveway.  If you are using my driveway without my
permission, either implicit (e.g. delivering a package) or explicit, I am
going to ask you to leave.  I think you are conflating whether something is
"not allowed" with "can be prosecuted as a crime."


I think *you* are conflating implicit permission and explicit 
permission. access=private as I understand the general community 
consensus to be means no access without *explicit* permission. No access 
without *implicit* permission is closer to access=destination... but 
note I said "closer to". We don't seem to have something that exactly 
means "no access except by *implied* permission".


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Greg Troxel]

Matthew Woehlke  writes:

>> I agree we need a new tag.  As I see it
>>
>>access=yes
>>
>>  legally-enshrined right of access, like a public street.  (Also used
>>  for private conservation land where the landowner invites the
>>  public, even though technically they could change the rules.)
>>  Perhaps shopping centers, even though not a right, it's close in
>>  practice.  Essentially always in truly public places.
>>
>>access=permissive
>>
>>  no *right* of access, but generally understood that the landowner
>>  does not object to typical use.  Often on trails not near houses
>>  that cross private land, but without an easement.  Basically can
>>  only be added by a local because it is essentially never signed.
>>
>>access=private
>>
>>  There is no right of access for random people.  There is no social
>>  expectation that it is reasonable for people to go there for for
>>  arbitrary purposes.  (For example, an actual neighbor coming to
>>  introduce themself, etc. is ok.)  This is the default assumption for
>>  driveways in New England - basically actual neighbors behaving in an
>>  actual neighborly way that they wouldn't mind someone else doing at
>>  their house is ok, deliveries ok, maybe gathering signatures for
>>  ballot access ok, and pretty much anything else not ok.
>
> *You* may see it this way. The rest of the community does not.

A declaration that every other member of the community disagrees is
unreasonable.  This is a complicated situation that does not neatly fit
the existing notions.

However, I meant to describe the categories, more than the binding of
tags to categories.  I think it's clear we need finer-grained tagging.

access was originally and mostly is about "The public has an official,
legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way." and many
of the flavors are about who/when has that right.  It is very clear that
for residential driveways there is no general right of access.

Where access is unclear is the space between:

  someone has a legally-enshrined right of access to use the way
  someone using the way is breaking the law

There are four big categories in between

  A) government or privete conservation land or parks, where there is no
  right of access, but socially it is almost like there is.
  Specifically, the government can't tell you you can't use the road
  (absent emergency orders, out of scope), but the Conservation
  Commission can announce that an area is closed to human use for X
  months to protect some bird, or whatever.  Still, access is ok almost
  always - there is just no right.  We typically mistag this as yes, or
  leave it empty.

  B) private shopping centers where the public is welcome, to shop.
  (access=customers, mostly) 

  C) private land where use is known acceptable (access=permissive)

  D) private land where what use is acceptable is highly limited (the
  situation under discussion, no good tag)

Part of the point is that for a residential driveway with no signs, the
actual semantics of access is far closer to access=private than any
other currently-defined access value (from
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
).   It's really "acesss=private, plus if you are a neighbor being
neighorly, or a few other things it's ok".

The wiki does not seem to give an access default for highway=service.
They are not generally not legal roads and thus access=yes is completely
not ok as a default.  Arguably "customers" is a good guess for
retail/commercial and the new tag we are arguing about, for residential.


In using somebody else's driveway, the only things/circumstances that I
would do different for a driveway with or without a no trespassign sign
are:

  knock on door, ask to sign nomination papers for election,
  etc. (anywhere)

  check on wellbeing after a storm (neighbors)

  look for misdelivered packges (neighbors)
  
  introduce myself, invite people to neighborhood party, etc. (neighbors)

  bring kids on halloween, only if the light by the door is on (somewhat
  broader than neighors, and the light being on *on halloween* is more
  or less an invitation)

This is really very limited, and why I see private as being a very close
fit, far closer than any other tag we have.  In other words, the total
semantic error from using it is the lowest possible error compared to
all other choices.

>> What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked
>> access=private on the map?  yes, driving on is usually technically not
>> illegal, but unless you are going there because you were invited for
>> have a reason they'd approve of, it's basically not ok.
>
> The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood
> meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what
> you described above. I don't think it's reasonable to change that
> definition, as it would invalidate huge amounts of the map.

Do 

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Brian Stromberg]

I agree on the tagging points, my comment on mapmakers was a response to
the claim that maps show the world as it is. By definition, maps are only
symbols. Those symbols can get extremely complex but they remain an
approximation of the real world. OSM should always strive to reflect what
is observable on the ground, whether those facts are embarrassing for some
or otherwise, but I personally find the symbolic and subjective nature of
maps fascinating =)

The viewpoint question is tricky. There are a lot of official viewpoints
with signage on popular drives and hikes. It would limit the subjectivity
of the tag if signage was the only consideration. I can understand wanting
to add others that aren't official, although those are sometimes only
accessible by wandering off of a trail (which is something I don't think
OSM should support, it's a big enough problem already).

I think there are other resources out there for people who are interested
in getting the best views they can, official trails be damned, so I lean
towards only including viewpoints that are accessible by established
trails/roads. Otherwise, people like me who use OSM for hiking trails,
might end up contributing to the degradation of the places we visit.

--
Brian


On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:28 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:53 PM Brian Stromberg 
> wrote:
>
>> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it
>> to be shown...
>>
>
> In OSM we should map facts, what is observable on the ground (with the
> exception of personal information, and perhaps culturally sensitive sites
> whose location has not otherwise been published ). Like Stevea alluded to,
> what the data user does with the information is up to them.  Otherwise, we
> descend into only relying on opinion as to what facts are "dangerous" or
> what facts could "encourage dangerous or bad behavior."  Also, some facts
> are embarrassing to individuals or organizations because those facts might
> show they are not doing their job.  Of course, they will not come out and
> say, please don't publish these facts because it is an embarrassment to us,
> they will find some way to say "the facts are dangerous" or "while the
> facts portray a bad situation, publishing those facts will only make the
> situation worse."
>
> In this case, our obligation is to clearly indicate that access=no or
> access=private (in other words, not open to the general public).
>
> We can debate whether this should be tagged tourism=viewpoint, but the
> debate should be around whether the object fits our definition, not whether
> it may or may not encourage "bad" behavior.  For all we know,
> historic=ruins might actually encourage more bad behavior than
> tourism=viewpoint.  I am not saying it will, I am saying we don't have any
> evidence one way or the other.
>
> Mike
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:46 AM Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

> On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> > What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked
> > access=private on the map?  yes, driving on is usually technically not
> > illegal, but unless you are going there because you were invited for
> > have a reason they'd approve of, it's basically not ok.
>
> The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood
> meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what
> you described above.

Sounds like my driveway.  If you are using my driveway without my
permission, either implicit (e.g. delivering a package) or explicit, I am
going to ask you to leave.  I think you are conflating whether something is
"not allowed" with "can be prosecuted as a crime."
Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote:

"Alex Weech" writes:

Another thing I just thought of over breakfast, in New Hampshire by
default private land has public access, and landowners have to post
that trespassing is not allowed. It could be that that's a quirk of
this part of the world, and other places don't have a posting
requirement, which is why there's some cultural disconnect.


It is likely the same law has Mass, but I think you have the details of
"public access" subtly wrong.  I think the law says:

   Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but this is
   not a crime.

   If it is posted, or you have been told, then it is a crime.

 From that, one can not conclude that "by default private land has public
access" in the OSM sense.  You can only conclude that "if you walk on it
you are not committing a crime".  In OSM, access=yes means "the public
has a legally-enshrined right of access", so not only can you go there,
but other people cannot tell you not to go there.  This notion of a
right is foundational to access=yes.

I agree we need a new tag.  As I see it

   access=yes

 legally-enshrined right of access, like a public street.  (Also used
 for private conservation land where the landowner invites the
 public, even though technically they could change the rules.)
 Perhaps shopping centers, even though not a right, it's close in
 practice.  Essentially always in truly public places.

   access=permissive

 no *right* of access, but generally understood that the landowner
 does not object to typical use.  Often on trails not near houses
 that cross private land, but without an easement.  Basically can
 only be added by a local because it is essentially never signed.

   access=private

 There is no right of access for random people.  There is no social
 expectation that it is reasonable for people to go there for for
 arbitrary purposes.  (For example, an actual neighbor coming to
 introduce themself, etc. is ok.)  This is the default assumption for
 driveways in New England - basically actual neighbors behaving in an
 actual neighborly way that they wouldn't mind someone else doing at
 their house is ok, deliveries ok, maybe gathering signatures for
 ballot access ok, and pretty much anything else not ok.


*You* may see it this way. The rest of the community does not.


   access=private
   sign:no_trespassing=yes

 Further means there is a no trespassing sign.

   (we already have a way to map gates.)

What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked
access=private on the map?  yes, driving on is usually technically not
illegal, but unless you are going there because you were invited for
have a reason they'd approve of, it's basically not ok.


The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood 
meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what 
you described above. I don't think it's reasonable to change that 
definition, as it would invalidate huge amounts of the map.


If access=destination is not acceptable, perhaps we need a new category.

--
Matthew

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

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:53 PM Brian Stromberg 
wrote:

> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it
> to be shown...
>

In OSM we should map facts, what is observable on the ground (with the
exception of personal information, and perhaps culturally sensitive sites
whose location has not otherwise been published ). Like Stevea alluded to,
what the data user does with the information is up to them.  Otherwise, we
descend into only relying on opinion as to what facts are "dangerous" or
what facts could "encourage dangerous or bad behavior."  Also, some facts
are embarrassing to individuals or organizations because those facts might
show they are not doing their job.  Of course, they will not come out and
say, please don't publish these facts because it is an embarrassment to us,
they will find some way to say "the facts are dangerous" or "while the
facts portray a bad situation, publishing those facts will only make the
situation worse."

In this case, our obligation is to clearly indicate that access=no or
access=private (in other words, not open to the general public).

We can debate whether this should be tagged tourism=viewpoint, but the
debate should be around whether the object fits our definition, not whether
it may or may not encourage "bad" behavior.  For all we know,
historic=ruins might actually encourage more bad behavior than
tourism=viewpoint.  I am not saying it will, I am saying we don't have any
evidence one way or the other.

Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

31 Aug 2020, 10:12 by frede...@remote.org:
> And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here"
> is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With
> that reasoning, someone with a personal low bar for "great views" could
> plaster the map with tourism=viewpoint.
>
It is the same as with highway=tertiary/
secondary/primary.

Someone with too low bar may plaster
map with highway=primary.

Both cases happened, both were noticed
and spurious objects 
downgraded/removed.

"Only places signed as viewpoint"
would remove valuable data in Poland,
and solving problem that AFAIK is not
existing. At least in places where I visited
(except rare cases).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Russell Nelson]

On 8/31/20 4:12 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:


And in my view, tagging something as "desirable to go there" via a
tourism=* tag, no matter how many
access=no/private/only_under_cover_of_darkness we add to that, that
would be disingenious.


Not so much "disingenuous" as misleading. Tourism implies you can go 
there, yet clearly you cannot. Access=no if it's not reasonable to get 
there, or access=private if the owner doesn't want you to go there, 
should be a reason for leaving off tourism=.


Maybe the problem is the name of the tag? Tag names can be misleading. 
They aren't just metadata.




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

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 31.08.20 05:38, stevea wrote:
> I don't mean to sound argumentative or antagonistic, but if someone more 
> clearly draws a line between "entered map data" and "encouraged people (in 
> any way) to do anything illegal," I'd like to follow that line.  However, 
> nobody has been able to do that (yet).

There *will* be a point where we will not be able to uphold this
distinction. The only question is, have we reached that point yet.

Imagine you set up a nice little web site where people can publicly say
something trivial about their lives. Nobody cares, it's a nice little
web site and of course if someone says something illegal it's not your
fault but that of the person who writes it. Fast forward a couple years,
and you're Twitter and the fact that people kill other people based on
what is written on your platform cannot be shrugged away; while you
would still like to shrug and say "it's not my fault if people abuse my
platform", the public won't let you get away with it.

The same *will* happen to OSM; it is possible that today we can still
get away with shenanigans like tagging a tourist attraction with "wink
wink access=no but everybody goes there anyway", just like in Europe
many people are adding mtb_scale tags to paths that are off-limits for
mountain bikers ("wink wink I am just recording how difficult it *would*
be for MTB if it *were* allowed to ride there..."), and if someone like
AllTrails ignores our "access=only_if_police_not_looking" tags we can
say "uh, their fault for misinterpreting our tags". But we won't be able
to deny this responsibility forever, at least if we record our data in a
way that can easily lead to misinterpretation.

And in my view, tagging something as "desirable to go there" via a
tourism=* tag, no matter how many
access=no/private/only_under_cover_of_darkness we add to that, that
would be disingenious.

I am all for tagging private/illegal/closed trails and paths and mark
them access=no or access=private; that's what DWG typically does when
land owners complain that they want "their" paths removed. We argue that
knowing about a private/illegal/closed trail can still be useful to aid
in navigation, and save lives in an emergency.

And I'd be ok with recording the fact that there is an old bunker at
that location. This knowledge, too, can be useful for navigation or
maybe even in an emergency. But tourism=*, I'd shy away from.

And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here"
is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With
that reasoning, someone with a personal low bar for "great views" could
plaster the map with tourism=viewpoint.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Aug 31, 2020, 00:17 by frede...@remote.org:

> Hi,
>
> On 8/30/20 22:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
>
>> Though I wonder what should be done with viewpoint itself.
>>
>
> In my mind, a viewpoint is not just something from where you have a nice
> view; it needs to be signposted or called a viewpoint. This, while
> enjoying some "destination" or perhaps even "attraction" status, is not
> what I would call a viewpoint. And even a tourist attraction, I think,
> should not be something that is illegal to visit.
>
(1) I think that explicit signpost is not necessary, unusually great
view seems sufficient. At least that is how I used this tag.

(2) As I understand, this place is described/called viewpoint
in multiple sources and widely used as such. So it is fulfilled anyway.

(3) In such case I would actually care about legality (I would not
always care about it! For example I would happily violate China/
North Korean/Russian laws about legality of mapping).

But sadly, it appears to actually to be viewpoint and on the ground
survey would almost certainly confirm this.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us