On 31/08/2020 15.56, Kevin Broderick wrote:
First, I'd like to point out that this discussion started off with the
question of removing "access=private" from Amazon-logistics-mapped
driveways. I still maintain that the mechanical edit would be a good thing,
because the tagging as added is based on an assumption that
service=driveway implies access=private, which (a) isn't 100% accurate, and
(b) adds the appearance of more detail in the database without actually
adding any value (i.e. if it is a safe assumption, then adding the tag is
superfluous; if it isn't, then adding it is potentially misleading).
Second, I'd like to point out that there *are* driveways in New England
that are actually public right-of-ways.
On a related note: I use service=driveway (for lack of anything better)
for access ways to parking lots that don't have parking spaces (hence,
not service=parking_aisle). These are likely *not* public right-of-ways
(the lots themselves are usually "private"), but they are also certainly
not access=private. So, no, service=driveway should *not* imply
access=private. If anything, lacking other information, it should imply
access=yes just like it does on any other way, and I suspect routing
engines route accordingly.
This, BTW, is a large part of why we're having this conversation in the
first place. The problem with overusing access=private is that we're
effectively teaching routing engines to ignore that, which makes such
tagging much less useful.
--
Matthew
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
