Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-05 Thread Glenn Plas
On 05-10-17 11:10, Marc Gemis wrote: > Does a tourist information sign indicates any access rights ? Is the > fact that a place is for rent indicates any access rights to the > driveway ? It can still be access=customers (or visitors, but we > don't have that) What I am sure about is that when

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-05 Thread joost schouppe
I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that if there's reasonable doubt, we shouldn't map anonymous info without a local survey or some other proof. 2017-10-05 11:10 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > Does a tourist information sign indicates any access rights ? Is the > fact that a

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-05 Thread Marc Gemis
Does a tourist information sign indicates any access rights ? Is the fact that a place is for rent indicates any access rights to the driveway ? It can still be access=customers (or visitors, but we don't have that). m. On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:58 AM, joost schouppe

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-05 Thread joost schouppe
Jakka mapped it as private, based on an anonymous note. However, we now have clear indications this is wrong. We can't use Streetview to define this as access=yes, but I believe we can use this to overrule an anonymous source. So I have removed the tag and left a fixme and a comment at the note. I

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-05 Thread Jonathan Beliën
I think it's indeed Château de Miremont ! It apparently was at some point a place we could rent to organize events ; no idea if it's still the case. https://www.pagesdor.be/entreprise/Seneffe/L11523167/Ch%C3%A2teau+de+Miremont/ Jonathan Beliën GEO-6 -Message d'origine- De : Glenn Plas

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-04 Thread Glenn Plas
It probably is Château de Miremont when checking the map. On 04-10-17 18:50, Glenn Plas wrote: > I can also see on the opposing side of the road a touristic sign that > points you toward what I think reads "Chateau de miracle" even though > it's blurred. > > That hardly looks private. > >

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-04 Thread Glenn Plas
I can also see on the opposing side of the road a touristic sign that points you toward what I think reads "Chateau de miracle" even though it's blurred. That hardly looks private.

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-04 Thread mgwebmail
You’re right, I didn’t noticed. > On 4 Oct 2017, at 15:46, Gerard Vanderveken wrote: > > On second view, on the left tree, seems to be a little C1 sign and on the > right tree there seems some text on a panel behind the leaves. > I believe it is private, unless a visit at the

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-04 Thread Gerard Vanderveken
On second view, on the left tree, seems to be a little C1 sign and on the right tree there seems some text on a panel behind the leaves. I believe it is private, unless a visit at the place proves otherwise. Regards, Gerard. mgwebm...@fastmail.fm wrote: Strange. That’s the link that is

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-04 Thread mgwebmail
Strange. That’s the link that is provided by their app. Could you try again with this one or go to http://www.ngi.be/topomapviewer/ and then search for Feluy : the path is just nest to the pointer. PS : I know it’s evil but still, have a look of the place on

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-04 Thread Pieter Brusselman
In this case I would agree with setting 'access=private' (cfr: https://www.balnam.be/localite/feluy) But every one can claim that a road/path/track is private...  I would check http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads for more info on that.  Both, Flanders

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-04 Thread Gerard Vanderveken
Private driveways are also mapped in the GIS of Vlaanderen. They are part of the mapping of every soil hardening. Don't know the case for Wallonia. The road itself is not in the Atlas, so the claim that it is private seems just. (the crossing path Sentier Miremont is in the Atlas and thus

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-04 Thread joost schouppe
Agreed. Extra argument is that if we remove it, someone else will just add it again. The best way to make sure everyone knows the road is private, is by mapping it as a private road. Not by not mapping it. I would leave the note open, and ask someone to verify locally. I can understand the

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How we deal with this kind of note

2017-10-04 Thread Jonathan Beliën
I would say to put that road (from the main road to the house) as `access=private` and reply to the note saying the road is now marked as private and even if it's displayed on the map, no one will use that road (including GPS using OpenStreetMap data). Wish you a pleasant day ! Jonathan