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outdated or erroneous.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
