Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> writes: >> 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.
A declaration that every other member of the community disagrees is unreasonable. This is a complicated situation that does not neatly fit the existing notions. However, I meant to describe the categories, more than the binding of tags to categories. I think it's clear we need finer-grained tagging. access was originally and mostly is about "The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way." and many of the flavors are about who/when has that right. It is very clear that for residential driveways there is no general right of access. Where access is unclear is the space between: someone has a legally-enshrined right of access to use the way someone using the way is breaking the law There are four big categories in between A) government or privete conservation land or parks, where there is no right of access, but socially it is almost like there is. Specifically, the government can't tell you you can't use the road (absent emergency orders, out of scope), but the Conservation Commission can announce that an area is closed to human use for X months to protect some bird, or whatever. Still, access is ok almost always - there is just no right. We typically mistag this as yes, or leave it empty. B) private shopping centers where the public is welcome, to shop. (access=customers, mostly) C) private land where use is known acceptable (access=permissive) D) private land where what use is acceptable is highly limited (the situation under discussion, no good tag) Part of the point is that for a residential driveway with no signs, the actual semantics of access is far closer to access=private than any other currently-defined access value (from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ). It's really "acesss=private, plus if you are a neighbor being neighorly, or a few other things it's ok". The wiki does not seem to give an access default for highway=service. They are not generally not legal roads and thus access=yes is completely not ok as a default. Arguably "customers" is a good guess for retail/commercial and the new tag we are arguing about, for residential. In using somebody else's driveway, the only things/circumstances that I would do different for a driveway with or without a no trespassign sign are: knock on door, ask to sign nomination papers for election, etc. (anywhere) check on wellbeing after a storm (neighbors) look for misdelivered packges (neighbors) introduce myself, invite people to neighborhood party, etc. (neighbors) bring kids on halloween, only if the light by the door is on (somewhat broader than neighors, and the light being on *on halloween* is more or less an invitation) This is really very limited, and why I see private as being a very close fit, far closer than any other tag we have. In other words, the total semantic error from using it is the lowest possible error compared to all other choices. >> 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. Do you really think that accesss=private in the db now reliably means that a mapper has seen a "no trespassing" or equivalent sign? If so, then you a reasonable point. If not, then I think the notion of private as absolute is overblown. I personally don't see the "no" as a bright line, feeling that reasonable use of unsigned private driveways has implicit permission. (By not putting up a no trespassing sign, a homeowner is implicitly giving permission for reasonable neighborly activity.) I see your point that really-no is different from mostly-no, and we're only disagreesing about whether private means mostly-or-really with a sign tag nuance, vs private meaning really-no and a new tag for mostly-no. > If access=destination is not acceptable, perhaps we need a new category. I think access=destination is very much not acceptable, because it means something very different. The wiki say "Only when travelling to this element/area; i.e., local traffic only." There is a strong implication that you can just decide to go someplace tagged as access=destination and as long as you are going there, rather than using the road as a shortcut, it's ok. And it means that when you decide to go, you have a legally-enshrined right to go. Someone who decides to visit a house to try to sell them frozen chickens out of the back of their truck (yes, it has happened) should not think that they have a right to use a private, unsigned driveway. Yes, it may not be a crime, but it is highly likely to be unwelcome and reasonably likely to lead to a trespass warning. Also, access=destination talks about typical signs, and in the US, it's "Local traffic only", which I would expect (and have probably seen) on side streets that would be used to avoid rush-hour traffic . Again, on public roads where you can just decide to go. So the question becomes how an (unsigned) driveway should be tagged so that: there is no suggestion that anyone has a legally-enshrined right of access there is no suggestion that random people have any reasonable expectation of use besides individual permission (to include deliveries, implicitly), neighborly use, as would be perceived by the house people, is ok None of the existing tag values matches. This is very definitely not "permissive", which means people can use the way for more or less arbitrary reasons. But it's a tiny bit like permissive, except that what's permitted is far far narrower, and that there is no requirement that it be generally understood. It's also not "unknown". The notion of acceptable use (not how to tag it, the actual notion) of other people's driveways is widely understood and not controversial, even if the edges are a bit fuzzy. I'll call this "mostly private" for this discussion. There's also the difficulty that a tag for "mostly private" should be ok on a signed drivewway, as a much closer fit than no tag and better than unknown, but should be changed to private if someone sees a sign. As always, people using OSM need to expect errors and to keep their eyes open; this is only really about having the going-in expectations and routing mostly right. I'm having a hard time coming up with a word. My list of rejects and why: "access=neighbors" implies that some class of people can use the way for any purposes "access=visitors" implies that a different class of people can use the way for any purposes. For example, this could be interpreted to include proselytizers access=private_unsigned implies that there is definitely not a sign, and it also makes the implication that private means there is a sign. Regardless of current semantics, I think if we want to encode that a property is posted no trespassing, we need some kind of sign tag that says exactly that. So I end up with access=private_residential access=private_mostly access=residential with perhaps text Typically used for residential driveways which lack no trespassing signs. Similar to private, with access by individual permission, with the exceptions that deliveries are ok, and also limited additional use such as neighborly visits by actual neighbors. This differs from permisssive in that there is no notion that other use is acceptable, even though it may not be unlawful. This differs from private in that there are no "no trespassing" signs. and I think "private_residential" is the best choice in terms of giving people who just see the tag the right idea. It's also ok for the case of "I know this is a residential driveway, and I don't know if it is signed", as being more accurate than "unknown", or
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
