Re: [Talk-us] Gated communities

[Evan Derickson]

I think there should be a new access tag for the "with permission only, but
you are likely to get it" case. Years ago OsmAnd tried to send me on a
"shortcut" through a military base while I was cycling. It turned out that
I could've used the road in question *if* I had contacted the base in
advance and gotten a recreation permit. For now that road is tagged as
access=private, but that doesn't tell the user that they can use it if they
plan ahead.

That is a little different from the case we have here, which seems to me
more like the difference between "access=private" and
"access=extra_private". Without creating new tags, I think the
access=private/destination distinction is the closest we can get to reality.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:32 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
>
> Mar 21, 2019, 4:11 PM by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:01 AM Mateusz Konieczny
>  wrote:
>
> For start, "residents only" gate is for me clearly access=private.
>
> "manned main gate" - is access strongly restricted?
> If nearly everybody, including vehicles, is let in I would tag it
> access=yes.
> It would also mean that access=destination would be better than
> access=private
> for inner ways of community.
>
> If access is strongly filtered (entrance requires permission from resident
> or
> guard is likely to resuse) then I would tag both gates access=private.
> Though it means that these gates are again not distinguishable.
>
>
> In practice, for the gated communities that I'm familiar with, there's
> not that significant a difference between access=destination and
> access=private at the main gate from this standpoint. If you have
> business in the community - pretty much equivalent to 'your
> destination is inside the community' - you're extremely likely to have
> the permission of a resident or business owner inside the gates.
> Nevertheless, if you're not a resident with a key card, you're not
> going to get through the automated gates. So access=destination for
> the main gate is in theory no more permissive than access=private, but
> gives a router a strong indication that "here is the correct entrance
> for visitors."
>
> I agree that access=destination is also better than access=private for
> roads inside the gate that are usable by visitors. (access=private is
> appropriate for service ways that lead to residents-only parking and
> similar things.)
>
> AFAIK access=destination is not limited to "I have permission from someone
> within", it also covers things like "I want to leave promotional
> leaflets", or
> "I want to walk around".
>
> It is rather for "no thru traffic" / "local traffic only" than "with
> permission only".
>
> Though I have no idea how to distinguish
> "with permission only, you are likely to get it if you have a good reason"
> and
> "with permission only, to get it you need to be an owner of a flat"
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-- 

--
Evan Derickson
(360) 402-6494
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Gated communities

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 21, 2019, 4:11 PM by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:01 AM Mateusz Konieczny
> <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > wrote:
>
>> For start, "residents only" gate is for me clearly access=private.
>>
>> "manned main gate" - is access strongly restricted?
>> If nearly everybody, including vehicles, is let in I would tag it access=yes.
>> It would also mean that access=destination would be better than 
>> access=private
>> for inner ways of community.
>>
>> If access is strongly filtered (entrance requires permission from resident or
>> guard is likely to resuse) then I would tag both gates access=private.
>> Though it means that these gates are again not distinguishable.
>>
>
> In practice, for the gated communities that I'm familiar with, there's
> not that significant a difference between access=destination and
> access=private at the main gate from this standpoint. If you have
> business in the community - pretty much equivalent to 'your
> destination is inside the community' - you're extremely likely to have
> the permission of a resident or business owner inside the gates.
> Nevertheless,  if you're not a resident with a key card, you're not
> going to get through the automated gates. So access=destination for
> the main gate is in theory no more permissive than access=private, but
> gives a router a strong indication that "here is the correct entrance
> for visitors."
>
> I agree that access=destination is also better than access=private for
> roads inside the gate that are usable by visitors. (access=private is
> appropriate for service ways that lead to residents-only parking and
> similar things.)
>
AFAIK access=destination is not limited to "I have permission from someone
within", it also covers things like "I want to leave promotional leaflets", or
"I want to walk around".

It is rather for "no thru traffic" / "local traffic only" than "with permission 
only".

Though I have no idea how to distinguish
"with permission only, you are likely to get it if you have a good reason"
and
"with permission only, to get it you need to be an owner of a flat"

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

Re: [Talk-us] Gated communities

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:01 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> For start, "residents only" gate is for me clearly access=private.
>
> "manned main gate" - is access strongly restricted?
> If nearly everybody, including vehicles, is let in I would tag it access=yes.
> It would also mean that access=destination would be better than access=private
> for inner ways of community.
>
> If access is strongly filtered (entrance requires permission from resident or
> guard is likely to resuse) then I would tag both gates access=private.
> Though it means that these gates are again not distinguishable.

In practice, for the gated communities that I'm familiar with, there's
not that significant a difference between access=destination and
access=private at the main gate from this standpoint. If you have
business in the community - pretty much equivalent to 'your
destination is inside the community' - you're extremely likely to have
the permission of a resident or business owner inside the gates.
Nevertheless,  if you're not a resident with a key card, you're not
going to get through the automated gates. So access=destination for
the main gate is in theory no more permissive than access=private, but
gives a router a strong indication that "here is the correct entrance
for visitors."

I agree that access=destination is also better than access=private for
roads inside the gate that are usable by visitors. (access=private is
appropriate for service ways that lead to residents-only parking and
similar things.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Gated communities

[Mateusz Konieczny]

access=destination for inner ways for community may be also a good idea
to give data to routers that transit traffic is not allowed (or access=private
if there is limited or no public access at all).

Though routers will use that only if there is more than one gate.

As usual - additional bicycle=*, foot=*, vehicle=*, emergency=* etc may apply.

For example some gates may have access used by emergency vehicles, allowing
them to open it and go through. Though tagging it is possible in cases where it 
is
signed.

Mar 21, 2019, 4:36 AM by ba...@ursamundi.org:

> I like this answer.  Behind the gates I tend to tag as private, but giving 
> one of the barriers access=destination should be enough for that to be the 
> default answer for going in, if implemented.
>
> Not really something common in Oklahoma, usually gated communities have only 
> one way in or out that isn't an emergency access, pedestrian or bicycle only 
> gate.
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:24 PM Evan Derickson <> derickso...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> What about marking the resident-only gates with access=private and the guest 
>> gate as access=destination?
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 16:03 Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us <>> 
>> talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> > wrote:
>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>>  Hash: SHA256
>>>  
>>>  ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>>  On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:38 PM, Frederik Ramm <>>> 
>>> frede...@remote.org  wrote:
>>>  
>>>  > Should all roads inside the gated community be access=private?
>>>  
>>>  I wouldn't necessarily mark all the roads as private as I think that would 
>>> hinder the routing engines.
>>>  
>>>  > What tags should be applied to (a) the main gate where visitors and
>>>  > delivery services are expected to report, and (b) resident-only gates?
>>>  
>>>  I've mapped a neighborhood like this before and I think I got the routing 
>>> to work properly by using gates at non-manned areas with access=private and 
>>> something else at the guard houses with access=designated or something to 
>>> that affect.  I think that fits the model...
>>>  
>>>  Eric "Sparks"
>>>  -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>>>  Version: ProtonMail
>>>  Comment: >>> https://protonmail.com 
>>>  
>>>  wsFcBAEBCAAGBQJcksYxAAoJEIB2q94CS7PREZoQALxqnyFgf57KuZ8btd9G
>>>  Rh/ttSnL2ut/P3JBddk++vM3qvxD0N6dAEQDF5X1mMYvYtwkjJ3JUm5WeFSL
>>>  MTt3teOV1KIJWb7fk8VsysJUatz3Q3Ksty9fevG1t5W2l+9tkXn6eNzMIL5c
>>>  Ztdabtgrlx/6I04IpQnPcqAjJUh48g5aQYCitfMQf3A/67/CRt0YnsYEa/79
>>>  0WmOUmtxLSDdofwOwi3g6CCma6oWiAttnrCfHLQhqbALSlM9e0+VLGICT2ma
>>>  c3eV0tzE7qvv6Xw3ngos6uVwsnJ5ppnslBax+ZDyRlc5De0ka+XAep/VWJQc
>>>  oU5Yd6gYj+7xiP+loFRLQoOR2gPSf1C/nPIVBKiD0tWgiEkPK/zHA8jA6C83
>>>  a+ZR+BNZ5LXQsSbHGn/4R5jyXBmRSRlsQ3UajVfcaDOteRKsvW2zNQUxQJn/
>>>  uzCPE6H1ZkuMjNzr2qT4/IT8TXc8Qyx+rZB/q0OiJfFa1QofNOmy9rsXkxzm
>>>  bDdcH+swBAe6eXz1snM/hYW8HDn0aba/TPYCK5+q5B3D9ynrIH9HktPVcIs9
>>>  wbt4/+qhBe4bxihA5A2vntZyrQJeHqObiMHvN8a4Zs1AiMvzEw70JAth6uYo
>>>  0oNrFCnHC3GZrEHZzyyGK/pjKlcevupEn4NIUZvWO1T6ph3rMLiAr241eSSy
>>>  xykO
>>>  =y2bt
>>>  -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  ___
>>>  Talk-us mailing list
>>>  >>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
>>>  >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
>>> 
>>>
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Evan Derickson
>>  (360) 402-6494
>>
>>
>> ___
>>  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] Gated communities

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 20, 2019, 11:38 PM by frede...@remote.org:

> Hi,
>
> DWG have been contacted by a resident of a gated community in Florida.
> They were unhappy about our routing which apparently leads people
> through an unmanned "residents only" gate where they won't get in,
> instead of to the manned main gate.
>
> I wonder how to deal with this, firstly from a "what is correct on the
> ground" perspective, but then also from a "what is useful routing-wise"
> perspective.
>
> Should all roads inside the gated community be access=private?
>
> What tags should be applied to (a) the main gate where visitors and
> delivery services are expected to report, and (b) resident-only gates?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
It depends on gated community.

For start, "residents only" gate is for me clearly access=private.

"manned main gate" - is access strongly restricted?
If nearly everybody, including vehicles, is let in I would tag it access=yes.
It would also mean that access=destination would be better than access=private
for inner ways of community.

If access is strongly filtered (entrance requires permission from resident or
guard is likely to resuse) then I would tag both gates access=private.
Though it means that these gates are again not distinguishable.

In Poland many gated communities are blocking only cars (to protect
limited parking space) so I tag it as
vehicle=private, bicycle=yes
as both pedestrians and cyclists are let in by guards without restriction.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Gated communities

[Paul Johnson]

I like this answer.  Behind the gates I tend to tag as private, but giving
one of the barriers access=destination should be enough for that to be the
default answer for going in, if implemented.

Not really something common in Oklahoma, usually gated communities have
only one way in or out that isn't an emergency access, pedestrian or
bicycle only gate.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:24 PM Evan Derickson 
wrote:

> What about marking the resident-only gates with access=private and the
> guest gate as access=destination?
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 16:03 Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:38 PM, Frederik Ramm 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Should all roads inside the gated community be access=private?
>>
>> I wouldn't necessarily mark all the roads as private as I think that
>> would hinder the routing engines.
>>
>> > What tags should be applied to (a) the main gate where visitors and
>> > delivery services are expected to report, and (b) resident-only gates?
>>
>> I've mapped a neighborhood like this before and I think I got the routing
>> to work properly by using gates at non-manned areas with access=private and
>> something else at the guard houses with access=designated or something to
>> that affect.  I think that fits the model...
>>
>> Eric "Sparks"
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> Version: ProtonMail
>> Comment: https://protonmail.com
>>
>> wsFcBAEBCAAGBQJcksYxAAoJEIB2q94CS7PREZoQALxqnyFgf57KuZ8btd9G
>> Rh/ttSnL2ut/P3JBddk++vM3qvxD0N6dAEQDF5X1mMYvYtwkjJ3JUm5WeFSL
>> MTt3teOV1KIJWb7fk8VsysJUatz3Q3Ksty9fevG1t5W2l+9tkXn6eNzMIL5c
>> Ztdabtgrlx/6I04IpQnPcqAjJUh48g5aQYCitfMQf3A/67/CRt0YnsYEa/79
>> 0WmOUmtxLSDdofwOwi3g6CCma6oWiAttnrCfHLQhqbALSlM9e0+VLGICT2ma
>> c3eV0tzE7qvv6Xw3ngos6uVwsnJ5ppnslBax+ZDyRlc5De0ka+XAep/VWJQc
>> oU5Yd6gYj+7xiP+loFRLQoOR2gPSf1C/nPIVBKiD0tWgiEkPK/zHA8jA6C83
>> a+ZR+BNZ5LXQsSbHGn/4R5jyXBmRSRlsQ3UajVfcaDOteRKsvW2zNQUxQJn/
>> uzCPE6H1ZkuMjNzr2qT4/IT8TXc8Qyx+rZB/q0OiJfFa1QofNOmy9rsXkxzm
>> bDdcH+swBAe6eXz1snM/hYW8HDn0aba/TPYCK5+q5B3D9ynrIH9HktPVcIs9
>> wbt4/+qhBe4bxihA5A2vntZyrQJeHqObiMHvN8a4Zs1AiMvzEw70JAth6uYo
>> 0oNrFCnHC3GZrEHZzyyGK/pjKlcevupEn4NIUZvWO1T6ph3rMLiAr241eSSy
>> xykO
>> =y2bt
>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
> --
>
> --
> Evan Derickson
> (360) 402-6494
> ___
> 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] Gated communities

[Evan Derickson]

What about marking the resident-only gates with access=private and the
guest gate as access=destination?

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 16:03 Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:38 PM, Frederik Ramm 
> wrote:
>
> > Should all roads inside the gated community be access=private?
>
> I wouldn't necessarily mark all the roads as private as I think that would
> hinder the routing engines.
>
> > What tags should be applied to (a) the main gate where visitors and
> > delivery services are expected to report, and (b) resident-only gates?
>
> I've mapped a neighborhood like this before and I think I got the routing
> to work properly by using gates at non-manned areas with access=private and
> something else at the guard houses with access=designated or something to
> that affect.  I think that fits the model...
>
> Eric "Sparks"
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: ProtonMail
> Comment: https://protonmail.com
>
> wsFcBAEBCAAGBQJcksYxAAoJEIB2q94CS7PREZoQALxqnyFgf57KuZ8btd9G
> Rh/ttSnL2ut/P3JBddk++vM3qvxD0N6dAEQDF5X1mMYvYtwkjJ3JUm5WeFSL
> MTt3teOV1KIJWb7fk8VsysJUatz3Q3Ksty9fevG1t5W2l+9tkXn6eNzMIL5c
> Ztdabtgrlx/6I04IpQnPcqAjJUh48g5aQYCitfMQf3A/67/CRt0YnsYEa/79
> 0WmOUmtxLSDdofwOwi3g6CCma6oWiAttnrCfHLQhqbALSlM9e0+VLGICT2ma
> c3eV0tzE7qvv6Xw3ngos6uVwsnJ5ppnslBax+ZDyRlc5De0ka+XAep/VWJQc
> oU5Yd6gYj+7xiP+loFRLQoOR2gPSf1C/nPIVBKiD0tWgiEkPK/zHA8jA6C83
> a+ZR+BNZ5LXQsSbHGn/4R5jyXBmRSRlsQ3UajVfcaDOteRKsvW2zNQUxQJn/
> uzCPE6H1ZkuMjNzr2qT4/IT8TXc8Qyx+rZB/q0OiJfFa1QofNOmy9rsXkxzm
> bDdcH+swBAe6eXz1snM/hYW8HDn0aba/TPYCK5+q5B3D9ynrIH9HktPVcIs9
> wbt4/+qhBe4bxihA5A2vntZyrQJeHqObiMHvN8a4Zs1AiMvzEw70JAth6uYo
> 0oNrFCnHC3GZrEHZzyyGK/pjKlcevupEn4NIUZvWO1T6ph3rMLiAr241eSSy
> xykO
> =y2bt
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-- 

--
Evan Derickson
(360) 402-6494
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Gated communities

[Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:38 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Should all roads inside the gated community be access=private?

I wouldn't necessarily mark all the roads as private as I think that would 
hinder the routing engines.

> What tags should be applied to (a) the main gate where visitors and
> delivery services are expected to report, and (b) resident-only gates?

I've mapped a neighborhood like this before and I think I got the routing to 
work properly by using gates at non-manned areas with access=private and 
something else at the guard houses with access=designated or something to that 
affect.  I think that fits the model...

Eric "Sparks"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail
Comment: https://protonmail.com

wsFcBAEBCAAGBQJcksYxAAoJEIB2q94CS7PREZoQALxqnyFgf57KuZ8btd9G
Rh/ttSnL2ut/P3JBddk++vM3qvxD0N6dAEQDF5X1mMYvYtwkjJ3JUm5WeFSL
MTt3teOV1KIJWb7fk8VsysJUatz3Q3Ksty9fevG1t5W2l+9tkXn6eNzMIL5c
Ztdabtgrlx/6I04IpQnPcqAjJUh48g5aQYCitfMQf3A/67/CRt0YnsYEa/79
0WmOUmtxLSDdofwOwi3g6CCma6oWiAttnrCfHLQhqbALSlM9e0+VLGICT2ma
c3eV0tzE7qvv6Xw3ngos6uVwsnJ5ppnslBax+ZDyRlc5De0ka+XAep/VWJQc
oU5Yd6gYj+7xiP+loFRLQoOR2gPSf1C/nPIVBKiD0tWgiEkPK/zHA8jA6C83
a+ZR+BNZ5LXQsSbHGn/4R5jyXBmRSRlsQ3UajVfcaDOteRKsvW2zNQUxQJn/
uzCPE6H1ZkuMjNzr2qT4/IT8TXc8Qyx+rZB/q0OiJfFa1QofNOmy9rsXkxzm
bDdcH+swBAe6eXz1snM/hYW8HDn0aba/TPYCK5+q5B3D9ynrIH9HktPVcIs9
wbt4/+qhBe4bxihA5A2vntZyrQJeHqObiMHvN8a4Zs1AiMvzEw70JAth6uYo
0oNrFCnHC3GZrEHZzyyGK/pjKlcevupEn4NIUZvWO1T6ph3rMLiAr241eSSy
xykO
=y2bt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

[Talk-us] Gated communities

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

DWG have been contacted by a resident of a gated community in Florida.
They were unhappy about our routing which apparently leads people
through an unmanned "residents only" gate where they won't get in,
instead of to the manned main gate.

I wonder how to deal with this, firstly from a "what is correct on the
ground" perspective, but then also from a "what is useful routing-wise"
perspective.

Should all roads inside the gated community be access=private?

What tags should be applied to (a) the main gate where visitors and
delivery services are expected to report, and (b) resident-only gates?

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

[Talk-us] Gated communities - access=private or destination?

[Nathan Edgars II]

In the U.S., a gated residential community usually allows anyone in who 
has a legitimate reason to be there (e.g. visiting a friend, delivering 
a package, repairing a TV). It seems that this fits access=destination 
as well as private. Would it be reasonable to tag it as such, and leave 
access=private for secondary entrances that lack a guard and can only be 
opened by residents?


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