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
