Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Jul 14, 2020, 13:17 by jm...@gmx.com:

> On 7/14/2020 4:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  via Talk-us wrote:
>
>>
>> Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by >> jm...@gmx.com>> :
>>
>>> If there was reason to believe you needed explicit  permission to 
>>> be on
>>> that way, then access=private would be correct.
>>>
>> I am unsure what is the best way to tag "explicit permissionnot 
>> required,
>> implicit permission is required" case. (it is not a bigproblem in 
>> Poland
>> where nearly all such roads will have a gate anyway, bumpingit 
>> into access=private)
>>
>
> I'm really not sure how to interpret "Implicit permission is  required." 
> To my mind, if permission is implicit, it's not  required 
> (access=permissive) and if permission is required, it's  not implicit 
> (access=private.)
>
>
You can go if you have a valid reason, even if not explicitly invited or 
permitted 
("hello, I am a new neighbor").

You are now allowed if you have no valid reason ("I used this road to make 
shortcut" or
"hello, I am a creepy stalker" or "hello, I am an onbnoxious peddler")
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

On 7/14/2020 4:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:


Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by jm...@gmx.com:

On 7/13/2020 4:09 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:


The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be
private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to
someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery,
obviously,
has business there.)


...this seems to be the definition of access=destination?


I'd say yes, that access=destination is closest to how I interpret
most
driveways: you can walk/drive along the driveway if you have a good
reason, eg to make a delivery or an inquiry.

access=destination mean "no transit", not "with valid reason".

access=destination on driveway means "cannot be used by transit",
not "can be used if owner presumably agrees".

access=destination has the same meaning as access=yes on ways
that are not usable for transit (for example driveway attached to
a single road on one end and leading into house)


Yes, I believe I understand the distinction here. (Which is why I said
"closest" -- it's not exactly right.)

By my understanding, access=destination means "You may use this way if
this is your destination." There are three implications here:
1 - It's more permissive than access=private. You don't need to ask to
use this way.
2 - It's less permissive than access=yes/permissive. You *only* have
permission if this is your destination. (I said "a good reason" which is
not exactly the same thing, though close.)
3 - You may not traverse this way onto another way with different
access, ie, don't use it for a shortcut. (A common road sign for this in
the USA is "No Thru Traffic".)

When a dead end like a driveway is tagged with access=destination,
number 3 is irrelevant and from a routing point of view it's identical
to access=yes/permissive. But numbers 1 and 2 still apply, so from a
semantic point of view it's a little better IMO.

But as I said, I would not encourage anyone to start tagging all
driveways with access=destination. I believe it's usually a better fit
than access=private, but unless there's specific prohibitive signage I'd
recommend omitting access tags on driveways.


If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to be on
that way, then access=private would be correct.

I am unsure what is the best way to tag "explicit permission not required,
implicit permission is required" case. (it is not a big problem in Poland
where nearly all such roads will have a gate anyway, bumping it
into access=private)


I'm really not sure how to interpret "Implicit permission is required."
To my mind, if permission is implicit, it's not required
(access=permissive) and if permission is required, it's not implicit
(access=private.)

For a typical unsigned & ungated driveway in the USA, I'd describe the
implied access as "You may use this way to make a delivery, or to
immediately ring the doorbell and state your business."
Access=destination is the closest tag IMO, but I think just
service=driveway and no access tag is better.

Jason

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

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

On 7/13/2020 3:22 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:

Out of curiosity, I looked at the tagging of a neighborhood I know of
which has privately owned roads (maintained by the homeowner’s
association) but no gate blocking entry. There are signs indicating
that the roads are “private” but that state road regulations are
enforced. The access on those roads is currently tagged as
access=permissive.

Thinking about it, that seems correct: The roads are privately owned.
But you are free to access them unless or until the owner withdraws
permission.

There are “gated communities” where you can’t get in unless you have a
card key or speak with a gate keeper. Those should, I think, have
access=private as you need explicit permission on each entry.

But for the case where the road is privately owned but the owner
allows access without prior consent, access=permissive seems to be a
good fit.

—Tod


Permissive sounds good to me in this case.

I suspect that sometimes access=permissive is applied in error by
mappers who misunderstand the term to mean "permission is required"
rather than "permission may be presumed."

To muddle things further, another popular tag is access=permit,
undocumented but I believe it means that access is allowed for holders
of a particular permit, eg, a camping permit or fishing license. If I'm
right about this then it's similar to access=private but a little more
informative.

And of course there's access=forestry, agricultural, military, delivery,
employees, customers -- all also a little more informative.

As usual I tag what I see, and if there's knowledge that can't easily be
observed firsthand then it's a good idea to be explicit about the source
and/or add a note=* tag. But I think this thread has made clear that
merely seeing the word "private" on a road sign does not mean the road
needs access=private.

Generally I'll use access=private for any road where the owner has
clearly prohibited unauthorized public access. A controlled physical
barrier isn't required but that would certainly qualify.

.Jason



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

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by jm...@gmx.com:

> On 7/13/2020 4:09 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
>> On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
>>> in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house
>>> without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
>>> has business there.)
>>>
>>
>> ...this seems to be the definition of access=destination?
>>
>
> I'd say yes, that access=destination is closest to how I interpret most
> driveways: you can walk/drive along the driveway if you have a good
> reason, eg to make a delivery or an inquiry.
>
access=destination mean "no transit", not "with valid reason".

access=destination on driveway means "cannot be used by transit",
not "can be used if owner presumably agrees".

access=destination has the same meaning as access=yes on ways
that are not usable for transit (for example driveway attached to 
a single road on one end and leading into house)

> If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to be on
> that way, then access=private would be correct.
>
I am unsure what is the best way to tag "explicit permission not required,
implicit permission is required" case. (it is not a big problem in Poland
where nearly all such roads will have a gate anyway, bumping it 
into access=private)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

On 7/13/2020 4:09 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:


The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
has business there.)


...this seems to be the definition of access=destination?


I'd say yes, that access=destination is closest to how I interpret most
driveways: you can walk/drive along the driveway if you have a good
reason, eg to make a delivery or an inquiry.

If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to be on
that way, then access=private would be correct. (And IMO someone
delivering to an address shouldn't automatically assume permission to
access a restricted way -- the ship-to address is not necessarily the
property of the person who requested the delivery.)


Is that the recommended way to tag residential driveways?

And I would say no, that tagging all driveways access=destination would
violate the traditional OSM best practice of "Don't map your local
legislation unless it's actually signed" (or however it's phrased.)
Unless there's a sign or some other indication (mapper's head on a
pike?) that this particular driveway has different access rules than
you'd expect, best to omit the access tag.




I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a
road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination
is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and
then does so happily.


My car does this, and doesn't even ask. It just warns me that "this
route uses private roads". I generally assume that's talking about the
final leg and ignore it.


I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of
'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for
everyone' is a bit hyperbolic.


Yup.


Fair cop, I should have said "breaking routing for others" not "breaking
routing for everyone." I'm quite glad to hear that OSMAnd deals
gracefully with this problem, because no matter how much I retag and
finger-wag it will always be with us.


That said, it does seem like access=destination is more correct for
ways that aren't explicitly access-restricted?

Agreed, but I feel that in most cases, especially for driveways, the
access tag is better omitted. And regardless, the armchair tagging of
driveways as access=private strikes me as an error.

Jason

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

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Jmapb  wrote:
> (Trying once again to change this thread subject!)
> 
> I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.
> 
> To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the routing 
> to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 
>  by drawing in the driveway 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 
>  and then snatching defeat from 
> the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway private. Yes, a large company 
> like Amazon (who paid for this driveway to be mapped, so we might presume 
> it's mapped to their specifications) can implement their own router and treat 
> the access=private tags more loosely, but that's no reason for them to be 
> breaking routing for everyone else.
> 
> In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should ONLY be 
> tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a restriction. And if 
> the access restriction is not verifiable by survey, it's good to add a 
> access:source=* or note=* so mappers like me won't assume the tag is outdated 
> or erroneous.
> 
> And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question of service roads 
> that lead to private enclaves within public lands. Often these roads are 
> public access up to a certain point, and having that information correctly 
> mapped is quite helpful. Many of these are imported from TIGER with 
> access=private the whole way, and reclaiming as much of these as possible is 
> certainly on my to-do list.
> 
> As far as what sign wording actually warrants access=private... "No 
> Trespassing", "Keep Out", that sort of thing. I agree that simply seeing the 
> word "private" does not equate to access=private, though in some situations 
> it would incline me towards access=destination. I wasn't aware of 
> ownership=private but I'll put it to use in the future.

Out of curiosity, I looked at the tagging of a neighborhood I know of which has 
privately owned roads (maintained by the homeowner’s association) but no gate 
blocking entry. There are signs indicating that the roads are “private” but 
that state road regulations are enforced. The access on those roads is 
currently tagged as access=permissive.

Thinking about it, that seems correct: The roads are privately owned. But you 
are free to access them unless or until the owner withdraws permission.

There are “gated communities” where you can’t get in unless you have a card key 
or speak with a gate keeper. Those should, I think, have access=private as you 
need explicit permission on each entry.

But for the case where the road is privately owned but the owner allows access 
without prior consent, access=permissive seems to be a good fit.

—Tod




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:

I'll confess to having perpetrated a fair number - at a time when I
didn't know better.


Likewise. That said...


A few things, though:

The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
has business there.)


...this seems to be the definition of access=destination? Is that the 
recommended way to tag residential driveways?



I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a
road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination
is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and
then does so happily.


My car does this, and doesn't even ask. It just warns me that "this 
route uses private roads". I generally assume that's talking about the 
final leg and ignore it.


I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of 
'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for 
everyone' is a bit hyperbolic.


Yup. That said, it does seem like access=destination is more correct for 
ways that aren't explicitly access-restricted?


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:52 PM Jmapb  wrote:
> I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.
>
> To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the routing 
> to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 by drawing in the 
> driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 and then snatching 
> defeat from the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway private. Yes, a large 
> company like Amazon (who paid for this driveway to be mapped, so we might 
> presume it's mapped to their specifications) can implement their own router 
> and treat the access=private tags more loosely, but that's no reason for them 
> to be breaking routing for everyone else.
>
> In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should ONLY be 
> tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a restriction. And if 
> the access restriction is not verifiable by survey, it's good to add a 
> access:source=* or note=* so mappers like me won't assume the tag is outdated 
> or erroneous.
>
> And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question of service roads 
> that lead to private enclaves within public lands. Often these roads are 
> public access up to a certain point, and having that information correctly 
> mapped is quite helpful. Many of these are imported from TIGER with 
> access=private the whole way, and reclaiming as much of these as possible is 
> certainly on my to-do list.

I'll confess to having perpetrated a fair number - at a time when I
didn't know better.

A few things, though:

The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
has business there.)

I ordinarily will NOT hike on a service way or track across
privately-owned land unless I see some indication that it is open, or
I know what the situation is in advance. Of course, there are
exceptions: for instance, I know of some woods roads that are public
rights-of-way, dating to a time before the automobile, where
landowners have attempted to close them.  The local hiking club
advises to hike them, openly and notoriously, disregarding the
posters.  (In at least one case that I'm aware of, the landowner
eventually changed the posters to read, "PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON
PRIVATE LAND. STAY ON TRAIL")
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291410854 is a public highway,
whatever the posters say! But most of the roads that have signs like
'Johnson Lane // PRIVATE'  are just farm driveways that I ordinarily
wouldn't hike.

I surely don't mark as `acccess=private` the service roads going to
inholdings on public land, whoever maintains them.  The last one I can
recall mapping was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20631036 - and I
marked it as `motor_vechicle=private` (it's signed 'no motor
vehicles'), `foot=designated bicycle=no wheelchair=no atv=no ski=yes
snowmobile=yes` and I left out `horse` because I have Absolutely No
Idea, except for the fact that the trail was free of horse
by-products. (Whether to use 'track', 'service' or 'residential' for
that way is controversial and in the end is also meaningless.  It's
there mostly for forestry. Someone happens to have a cabin on it. In
the field, it's a pair of ruts winding off into the woods.)

I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a
road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination
is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and
then does so happily.  (Much more happily than before I tweaked
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/165370475 to restore network
connectivity. When I was driving on it, it wound up scolding me, "You
have been driving off road for the last 1.5 miles. Please proceed to
the highlighted route!") It's not just whatever custom system Amazon
uses. I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of
'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for
everyone' is a bit hyperbolic.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

[Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

On 7/13/2020 12:59 PM, Alex Hennings wrote:


The /sole purpose/ of routing is to get the user to their destination
without breaking any laws. These are also /specifically my/ /goals
/when I'm using a router. Frequently (in my rural area) getting to my
destination requires using a privately owned road. You might say
"access=private" isn't a problem because I can tell my router to
ignore "access=private". But I don't want to go down any roads that
say "Stay out" and have a gate, or a person brandishing a rifle.
When every privately owned road is marked as access=private, it is not
possible for me to achieve both of those goals (get there, don't break
laws) at the same time. By encouraging routers to ignore
"access=private" you're neutering real access restrictions.

So, you're either saying /don't worry about/ breaking laws, or /don't
worry about/ getting to your destination

That is my argument /against access=private/ on privately owned roads.
My argument /for ownership=private/ is to set a clear and visible
precedent that private ownership /has a tag/, which /is not the access
tag.
/

-Alex

(Trying once again to change this thread subject!)

I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.

To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the
routing to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 by
drawing in the driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 and
then snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway
private. Yes, a large company like Amazon (who paid for this driveway to
be mapped, so we might presume it's mapped to their specifications) can
implement their own router and treat the access=private tags more
loosely, but that's no reason for them to be breaking routing for
everyone else.

In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should ONLY be
tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a restriction. And
if the access restriction is not verifiable by survey, it's good to add
a access:source=* or note=* so mappers like me won't assume the tag is
outdated or erroneous.

And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question of service
roads that lead to private enclaves within public lands. Often these
roads are public access up to a certain point, and having that
information correctly mapped is quite helpful. Many of these are
imported from TIGER with access=private the whole way, and reclaiming as
much of these as possible is certainly on my to-do list.

As far as what sign wording actually warrants access=private... "No
Trespassing", "Keep Out", that sort of thing. I agree that simply seeing
the word "private" does not equate to access=private, though in some
situations it would incline me towards access=destination. I wasn't
aware of ownership=private but I'll put it to use in the future.

Jason

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

[Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

On 7/12/2020 6:03 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote:

> The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the
> tiger:reviewed=no tag until access can be confirmed, and add a note
or fixme. (It's also quite common to find driveways
> imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend  to remove the
private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed
> private, since access=private will prevent routing to the house at
the end of the driveway, sometimes even ending the
> route on a different residential road that's physically closer to
the house than the road the driveway's connected to.)
I always thought that driveways to private residences and private
roads (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private. 
Often these private roads are posted with a sign that says something
like "Private road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and
Guests Only."

Mike


As I said, I tend to remove access=private if I DON'T see any barrier or
signed restriction during a survey. If I see see "private" or "no
trespassing" I certainly wouldn't. This is consistent with OSM
verifiability standards.

I feel the most appropriate default tag for driveways would be
access=destination, but since generally they are short dead ends it
rarely seems necessary. But there do seem to be many driveways tagged
access=private. Some from TIGER (which certainly can't be trusted) and
some from humans, sometimes using Facebook's RapiD.

Here's an example of how access=private on a driveway causes the routing
problem I'm talking about:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=41.9288%2C-74.0024%3B41.9157%2C-74.0290#map=16/41.9168/-74.0237=N

There's no access to the house at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 (forgive the poor building
mapping, not mine! ;) from Linderman Avenue. The correct is approach is
from the driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 but that
driveway was marked as private by the mapper who added it (one of
Amazon's paid mappers, using RapiD.) The source list (always the same
long list of sources with the Amazon mappers) includes Bing Streetside
but I don't see any reason that this driveway should be marked private:

https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=fd2b22c5-aaed-46f5-8128-a64aaf15c84b=41.91594~-74.029559=19=106.782906=-7.023267=x=z.0=2=2=S00027

If I surveyed a location like this and deemed it appropriate to remove
the access=private tag from the driveway, I believe that would benefit
the map.

Jason

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