Vào lúc 07:00 2020-08-30, Greg Troxel đã viết:
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.
I expressed support for the proposed mechanical edit because the
distinctions being debated in this thread didn't factor into the
workflow that originally added these access=private tags. All the posted
driveways I've mapped are now tagged identically to every other
driveway. Lesson learned: I should map the posting distinction more
explicitly in the future, such as using traffic_sign=*. But if I map an
adjacent traffic_sign=* feature while leaving the way's access=* set to
the same value as every other driveway, that still strikes me as a bit
of a trap for data consumers. Access is too important to simply coin an
ad-hoc tag for without having data consumers on board.
If you object to pink dots on driveways, I'd say that access=private is
what is expected so the renderer should be fixed to not show that and
show other access values.
The status quo ante had been that most driveways lacked an access tag.
Unlike with highway=residential or whatnot, I don't think there was much
of an end user expectation that driveways in general would indicate
restricted access. I don't think people were likely to have stumbled
upon these driveways just because they lacked a dotted pattern on a map.
Meanwhile, from a routing standpoint, these blanket access=private tags
are problematic. For example, OSRM tries to snap an origin or
destination waypoint to a roadway to avoid returning no route. [1]
However, this snapping only takes the road topography into account and
can unfortunately snap across barriers such as fences, ravines, and
railroad tracks. Overuse of access=private exacerbates this problem by
forcing the router to snap even greater distances to a public road. [2]
Most property owners would prefer that you use their driveway as you
leave their property instead of making a beeline dash for the nearest
public road across their petunias.
I favor stripping the access tags from the Amazon-tagged driveways (not
all driveways) and starting over. Going forward, we can document the
reasons for a driveway's access tag on a case by case basis by mapping
things like gates and no trespassing signs.
A further issue we haven't talk about:
How much detail is ok on residential property, from a privacy
viewpoint? Is mapping of "no trespassing signs" going too far?
We show structures, and we show driveways. These don't feel invasive
given imagery. They are very useful for navigation, particularly with
long driveways. We don't map much else.
To me, marking individual driveways about whether they have a no
trespassing sign or not, is a bit much. It feels a bit dangerous, in
terms of getting it wrong and expectations. Yes, you can see them from
the road, but still.
I also don't think it's all that useful. When you are going somewhere,
you need to pay attention, regardless of the map. And you know why you
are going, and if you have some kind of permission, and we are not going
to automate that.
No trespassing signs seem more useful to map than front yard flagpoles
and backyard swimming pools, but I map those already.
A couple scenarios to consider:
* An office building has a small parking lot and a sign at the driveway
that says, "Private property -- Enter driveway by appointment only". [3]
To me, this driveway would be a natural case for access=private. One
could argue that it's customers who would be making the appointments,
thus access=customers on both the driveway and parking lot, but that
would be indistinguishable from the great many strip mall parking lots
with "Customer Parking Only" signs that we tag as access=customers. As
far as I know, no router uses the accessibility of a parking lot to
decide whether the driveway that leads to it is also accessible.
* A homeowner is the victim of a county GIS database that erroneously
extended their narrow driveway up a hill to connect to a large
subdivision. Apparently large vehicles have attempted to use the
driveway as a shortcut, only to have trouble backing out. Before the
owner installed a gate out of desperation, they tried posting a no
trespassing sign. They also tried repeatedly to edit OpenStreetMap,
going as far as to delete their driveway, thinking it would influence
drivers. [4] I think it's safe to say that any owner who posts a no
trespassing sign would appreciate OSM respecting that sign. Granted, it
would be less clear-cut if the sign bears a facetious message. (There
are many examples in Google Image Search.)
[1]
https://blog.mapbox.com/robust-navigation-with-smart-nearest-neighbor-search-dbc1f6218be8
[2] https://f.zz.de/posts/201910152010.access_private_on_driveways/
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/741756423
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16246127/history
--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
