Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Skyler Hawthorne]

On May 25, 2020 15:35:44 Jack Armstrong  wrote:
I agree with Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object 
remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the 
railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are 
absolutely no visible remains of what was once there, it can be removed.



I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist.

- Jack Armstrong
chachafish


I agree. OSM is not a historical object database. If it doesn't exist, it 
shouldn't be in the data.

--
Skyler
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Warin]

On 27/5/20 11:42 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote:


What has been proposed is to add a new way of tagging of what with the 
present tagging could be:described with

highway=path plus sac_scale=hiking
with a new combination of
highway=path plus path=hiking



I don't think that will help.

Replacing sac_scale=hiking or even triple tagging with path=hiking can 
lead to the same problems that presently exist.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Arne Johannessen]

Colin Smale  wrote:
>  
> In the UK simple trespass to land is not illegal, it is for the landowner to 
> claim under civil law: "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the 
> immediate and exclusive possession of another". What constitutes 
> "unjustifiable" is the key here. Delivering a package would sound like 
> justification to me (IANAL).

According to Wikipedia: "Justification by law refers to those situations in 
which there is statutory authority permitting a person to go onto land, such as 
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allows the police to enter 
land for the purposes of carrying out an arrest."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_in_English_law#Defences_2

This seems to mean that there would need to be a law specifically allowing 
access for package deliveries in order for that to be "justified". I'm assuming 
such a law doesn't exist in the UK (but you're most welcome to correct me).


> I disagree that permission needs to be explicit for access=private.

Okay. Can you explain, specifically, how "implicit" permissions are supposed to 
work?

For example, here are a few images of "keep out" signs. Now think of somebody 
making a package delivery. How are they supposed to determine whether 
"implicit" permission exists in their individual case or not? Is it different 
for some of these signs, or are they all the same in this regard?

(1)  https://c7.alamy.com/zooms/3/aba70f5b6cb8481e871505ed3fd13186/c80x44.jpg
(2)  
https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/w9tm1e/a-private-road-no-access-without-permission-sign-on-a-post-at-the-side-of-a-farm-track-next-to-an-arable-stubble-field-w9tm1e.jpg
(3)  
https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/ewc253/no-access-sign-in-countryside-ewc253.jpg
(4)  
https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/ey37mm/private-land-no-public-access-sign-by-grazing-meadows-in-the-norfolk-ey37mm.jpg
(5)  
https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/m1gdn4/strictly-private-keep-out-sign-on-old-gate-m1gdn4.jpg
(6)  
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Another_part_of_RAF_Shawbury_-_geograph.org.uk_-_658196.jpg
(7)  
https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/ehacrm/construction-site-keep-out-sign-ehacrm.jpg


Feel free to choose a different example if the concept is difficult to explain 
for package delivery.

BTW, let me point out that choosing not to take legal action is not the same 
thing as giving permission.
And assuming that no one will take legal action is not the same thing has 
having received permission.


-- 
Arne Johannessen



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Volker Schmidt]

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 20:34, Daniel Westergren  wrote:

> And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in
>> practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as
>> the hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it.
>>
>
> This is likely the default way of interpreting highway=path with no
> additional tags.
>

What I called a "hiking" path without additional tags is highway=path with
sac_cale=hiking

>
> *I still think the distinction needs to be much more clear between
> path|footway|cycleway for all the cases when no additional tag is being
> used. *
>

The real world situation is much more variegated.
When I see something that look like a track, feels like a track, wide
enough for a tractor, but has a foot-cycle-way blue disk sign (in many
Europens countries) I tag this as a highway=track plus its appropriate
properties tags plus bicycle=designated plus foot designated plus
segregated=no (there is no white line on the forest track.. If it is half
width, it's a path.

> Fine with JOSM messing up combined foot- and cycleways (I tried to look,
but couldn't find an issue tracker to discuss that misbehaviour with the
JOSM developers). In JOSM I get a warning if I add a combined foot- and
cycleway without adding a segregated tag. *If highway=path with no surface
tag would get the same warning in both JOSM and iD, we'd be getting at
least somewhere.*

JOSM is not messing anything up, it only uses as presets a way of tagging
foot-cycle-ways that is widely used in Germany, Italy, and other countries.
iD does take a different approach, possibly also because the situation in
the US is different.
I don't think it's JOSMs fault. That tagging was already in wide use before
JOSM had it as preset, if I remember well.

> Good that this discussion has lead to some improvement of the description
of sac_scale. As has been mentioned, *sac_scale and mtb:scale need values
for "no"* as well, to actively say that "although this is a path, it
doesn't qualify for a hiking path or an mtb singletrail". *And the
description for those tags would need to emphasize when not to use the tag,
or use the "no" value. Otherwise sac_scale=hiking makes no distinction
whatsoever between a paved path and a hiking path that may be quite
technical.*

I agree with the need for a default value for sac_scale. It should be
sac_scale=hiking. MTV_scale does not need a separate default value, as the
SAC scale "hiking" is clear enough for an  MTB rider as well (I think). The
problem may be that MTB scale=0 assumes no positive gradient (but I am not
an MTB expert)







>
>

> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Volker Schmidt]

When I used the term ""hiking" path" that was meant inclusive of bicycle
(MTB) use, an , in most countries also horses.
The default access settings

for path in most countries are foot, bicycle, horse


On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 16:29, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in
> practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as
> the hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 27, 2020, 20:31 by wes...@gmail.com:

> Fine with JOSM messing up combined foot- and cycleways (I tried to look, but 
> couldn't find an issue tracker to discuss that misbehaviour with the JOSM 
> developers).
>
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/report available vie "view tickets" tabs at JOSM 
website
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

>
> And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in
> practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as
> the hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it.
>

This is likely the default way of interpreting highway=path with no
additional tags.

I just commented on a new mapper using highway=footway for the above
example. The response I got was that it should probably be footway, as the
path was leading to stairs and as such "not accessible" by bicycle and
therefore a footpath. With no additional tag I would interpret
highway=footway as an urban path with some kind of smooth surface, which
was not the case here and I think it should be highway=path and possible
bicycle=no & mtb=no.

*I still think the distinction needs to be much more clear between
path|footway|cycleway for all the cases when no additional tag is being
used. *Should a footway be used for a natural forest path where it's
unlikely that MTB:s will go? No. But the wiki description leaves the door
open.

Fine with JOSM messing up combined foot- and cycleways (I tried to look,
but couldn't find an issue tracker to discuss that misbehaviour with the
JOSM developers). In JOSM I get a warning if I add a combined foot- and
cycleway without adding a segregated tag. *If highway=path with no surface
tag would get the same warning in both JOSM and iD, we'd be getting at
least somewhere.*

Good that this discussion has lead to some improvement of the description
of sac_scale. As has been mentioned, *sac_scale and mtb:scale need values
for "no"* as well, to actively say that "although this is a path, it
doesn't qualify for a hiking path or an mtb singletrail". *And the
description for those tags would need to emphasize when not to use the tag,
or use the "no" value. Otherwise sac_scale=hiking makes no distinction
whatsoever between a paved path and a hiking path that may be quite
technical.*

/Daniel







>
>

> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 27, 2020, at 6:42 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> This does not describe the situation
> highway=footway is "urban", implies foot=designated, usage can be expanded 
> with tags like bicycle=yes|permisive||designated to describe mid-use ways
> 
> highway=cycleway implies bicycle=designated, usage can be widened with tags 
> like foot=yes|permissive|designated to describe mixed-use ways (this
> 
> path is being used for two completly different  things:
> (a) a "hiking" path, mostly in non-urban situations, including mountain hiking
> (b) with the additional tagging foot=designated plus bicycle=designated plus 
> segregated=yes|no as a mixed use foot-cycle-way
> 

And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in 
practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as the 
hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it.




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 27, 2020, 15:12 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

> I went back to this edit [1] before the wiki was changed recently.
> Back then, bicycle=no was simply defined as "where bicycles are not
> permitted." If nothing else is said, then nobody can conclude that
> "riding bicycles is not permitted but carrying/pushing is," it said
> "bicycles."
>
Yes, I agree that my edit changed definition of bicycle=no
on the wiki.

I did it because I am pretty sure that it matches real usage.

Checking bicycle=no vs bicycle=dismount usage,
lack of support for bicycle=dismount in JOSM etc
confirmed this to me.

>  This has been pointed out before. [2][3] In the same
> table, a distinction is made for values such as bicycle=use_sidepath
> and bicycle=dismount.
>
bicycle=use_sidepath is far more likely to be correct because people
using bicycle=use_sidepath are likely to understand purpose
of this vale

While people using bicycle=no may be utterly unaware that bicycle=dismount
and its planned differences exists

> That said, I do not oppose changes to clarify this situation.
>
I really hope that my changes actually match how people map.
I am pretty sure about that, but I welcome any comments of whatever
it was a good idea or not.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 27, 2020, 18:36 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:22 AM Fernando Trebien <> 
> fernando.treb...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >
> > If there really is widespread agreement that bicycle=no should be
> treated like bicycle=dismount (plus, perhaps, some treatment when
> foot/access=destination), I would expect more requests to correct this
> in applications
>
> Most people who ride bikes will want to avoided any places where dismounting 
> is required. It is usually faster to take a different route. Only rarely will 
> it be worthwhile to use a way with bicycle=dismount
>

For routing purposes "you may not pass at all" and "you must dismount"
are very close, closer than most non-cyclists would expect.

I am cycling a lot, also in places with bizarre rules and at times with poor 
cycling infrastructure
and only in extreme cases it makes sense to take route that requires 
dismounting anywhere.

Also, I use http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=15/50.0670/19.9445/standard
as a primary router that was mentioned to allow route through also bicycle=no.

And routing results are obnoxiously hard to debug properly, I run multiple times
into quite stupid results and tracked down root case only where it was clearly 
OSM data problem (car routing leaving motorway because there was gap in it etc)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:22 AM Fernando Trebien 
wrote:
>
> One more thing: the distinction between bicycle=no and
> bicycle=dismount has made its way to this important article for
> various countries around 2015. [14]
>
> [14]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions

That article says "Default is a proposal (not yet fully drafted, no RFC, no
voting yet) for a possible, upcoming default value system. This proposal
may set default access restrictions by area (country, state...) if it
becomes a generally accepted practice."

I would not consider it to represent consensus.

In the United States, if a way is tagged foot=yes + bicycle=no, it is
almost always correct to assume that pushing or carrying a bicycle while
walking is permitted. The exceptions are US Wilderness areas, where all
motorized and mechanical devices are prohibited, and sometimes indoors in
buildings such as malls. On streets, roads and footways, it is legal to
push a bicycle if you are allowed to walk.

> If there really is widespread agreement that bicycle=no should be
treated like bicycle=dismount (plus, perhaps, some treatment when
foot/access=destination), I would expect more requests to correct this
in applications

Most people who ride bikes will want to avoided any places where
dismounting is required. It is usually faster to take a different route.
Only rarely will it be worthwhile to use a way with bicycle=dismount

– Joseph Eisenberg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Volker Schmidt]

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 15:15, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> The way I see it is there are two main views of highway=footway,path in
> OSM.
>
> 1. Is that footway is urban and path is remote/forest
> 2. Is that footway is for primary walking paths (including remote/forest
> paths) and that path is for non-specified usage or mixed use paths
> (including urban paths).
>
> This does not describe the situation

   - *highway=footway* is "urban", implies foot=designated, usage can be
   expanded with tags like bicycle=yes|permisive||designated to describe
   mid-use ways

   - *highway=cycleway *implies bicycle=designated, usage can be widened
   with tags like foot=yes|permissive|designated to describe mixed-use ways
   (this

   - *path* is being used for two completly different  things:

(a) a "hiking" path, mostly in non-urban situations, including mountain
hiking
(b) with the additional tagging foot=designated plus bicycle=designated
plus segregated=yes|no as a mixed use foot-cycle-way

All of these are widely used and I think it will be impossible to undo the
tagging.
What has been proposed is to add a new way of tagging of what with the
present tagging could be:described with
highway=path plus sac_scale=hiking
with a new combination of
highway=path plus path=hiking
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Fernando Trebien]

One more thing: the distinction between bicycle=no and
bicycle=dismount has made its way to this important article for
various countries around 2015. [14]

[14] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:12 AM Fernando Trebien
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:55 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>  wrote:
> > May 27, 2020, 01:35 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> >  wrote:
> >
> > May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
> >
> > Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
> > (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount).
> > Bikes are only completely forbidden if bicycle=no/private.
> >
> > bicycle=no does not mean that you cannot push bicycle
> >
> > The wiki defines bicycle=no the same as access=no, which means no
> > access. If you have foot=no, that means no access by foot.
> >
> > and if you have bicycle=no that means no access by bicycle
> > It says nothing about access with bicycle (pushed/carried).
>
> I went back to this edit [1] before the wiki was changed recently.
> Back then, bicycle=no was simply defined as "where bicycles are not
> permitted." If nothing else is said, then nobody can conclude that
> "riding bicycles is not permitted but carrying/pushing is," it said
> "bicycles." This has been pointed out before. [2][3] In the same
> table, a distinction is made for values such as bicycle=use_sidepath
> and bicycle=dismount. If misunderstanding is common [4][5], the only
> solution is to create new values and deprecate the old ones, as was
> done for surface=cobblestone. [6]
>
> > bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount are de facto equivalents
> >
> > How can you conclude that?
> >
> > Based on my experience of how people map such restrictions?
> > Based on my experience how tags in such situations are processed by data 
> > consumers?
> >
> > And it is not just me, see
> > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9158
>
> The answer on this ticket is specific to Germany.
>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/thread.html#15135
>
> Looks like this thread did not reach a conclusion, resulting in no
> changes to the wiki. Interpretations appear to be divided. To me, it
> looks like this proposition [7] would have solved all situations, but
> I see no usage of the proposed tag or other alternatives proposed
> throughout the discussion.
>
> Since 2014, GraphHopper [8] and OSRM [9][10] implement the
> interpretation of bicycle=dismount as pushing but no riding and
> bicycle=no as no access whatsoever, not even pushing. No questions so
> far regarding this interpretation. Bicycle routing using GraphHopper
> and OSRM has been offered in OSM's main website for a very long time.
> The UK-based CycleStreets journey planner also implements this
> interpretation. [11] Some guys on brouter [12] agree with you, but
> brouter profiles still assign a very high cost when bicycle=no [13].
> You should probably note that those remarks were made 3 years after
> brouter has offered bicycle routing with the current interpretation.
>
> If there really is widespread agreement that bicycle=no should be
> treated like bicycle=dismount (plus, perhaps, some treatment when
> foot/access=destination), I would expect more requests to correct this
> in applications such as OSRM, GraphHopper, brouter and others.
>
> That said, I do not oppose changes to clarify this situation. First we
> need either proper tagging scheme or a change of definitions that
> embraces all situations mentioned so far, then we need to ask
> developers to change their routing profiles to avoid confusion among
> mappers and users.
>
> [1] 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle=1965874#Bicycle_Restrictions
> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015308.html
> [3] 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount=1919911
> [4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015315.html
> [5] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015356.html
> [6] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=61042
> [7] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015276.html
> [8] https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/695
> [9] https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/78
> [10] https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/5072
> [11] https://www.cyclestreets.net/help/journey/osmconversion/#toc9
> [12] https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79
> [13] https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/226
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien



-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Volker Schmidt]

Just to demonstrate that "hiking" paths with sac_scale=mountain_hiking
properties and combined foot-cycleways are not mutually exclusive: a
real-world Mapillary shot
from Padova, a
bustling city in the flatlands of the Po Valley (not photoshopped!)
Just accept this as my contribution to lessen the psychological stress of
this never-ending discussion.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Fernando Trebien]

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:55 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:
> May 27, 2020, 01:35 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>  wrote:
>
> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
> (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount).
> Bikes are only completely forbidden if bicycle=no/private.
>
> bicycle=no does not mean that you cannot push bicycle
>
> The wiki defines bicycle=no the same as access=no, which means no
> access. If you have foot=no, that means no access by foot.
>
> and if you have bicycle=no that means no access by bicycle
> It says nothing about access with bicycle (pushed/carried).

I went back to this edit [1] before the wiki was changed recently.
Back then, bicycle=no was simply defined as "where bicycles are not
permitted." If nothing else is said, then nobody can conclude that
"riding bicycles is not permitted but carrying/pushing is," it said
"bicycles." This has been pointed out before. [2][3] In the same
table, a distinction is made for values such as bicycle=use_sidepath
and bicycle=dismount. If misunderstanding is common [4][5], the only
solution is to create new values and deprecate the old ones, as was
done for surface=cobblestone. [6]

> bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount are de facto equivalents
>
> How can you conclude that?
>
> Based on my experience of how people map such restrictions?
> Based on my experience how tags in such situations are processed by data 
> consumers?
>
> And it is not just me, see
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9158

The answer on this ticket is specific to Germany.

> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/thread.html#15135

Looks like this thread did not reach a conclusion, resulting in no
changes to the wiki. Interpretations appear to be divided. To me, it
looks like this proposition [7] would have solved all situations, but
I see no usage of the proposed tag or other alternatives proposed
throughout the discussion.

Since 2014, GraphHopper [8] and OSRM [9][10] implement the
interpretation of bicycle=dismount as pushing but no riding and
bicycle=no as no access whatsoever, not even pushing. No questions so
far regarding this interpretation. Bicycle routing using GraphHopper
and OSRM has been offered in OSM's main website for a very long time.
The UK-based CycleStreets journey planner also implements this
interpretation. [11] Some guys on brouter [12] agree with you, but
brouter profiles still assign a very high cost when bicycle=no [13].
You should probably note that those remarks were made 3 years after
brouter has offered bicycle routing with the current interpretation.

If there really is widespread agreement that bicycle=no should be
treated like bicycle=dismount (plus, perhaps, some treatment when
foot/access=destination), I would expect more requests to correct this
in applications such as OSRM, GraphHopper, brouter and others.

That said, I do not oppose changes to clarify this situation. First we
need either proper tagging scheme or a change of definitions that
embraces all situations mentioned so far, then we need to ask
developers to change their routing profiles to avoid confusion among
mappers and users.

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle=1965874#Bicycle_Restrictions
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015308.html
[3] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount=1919911
[4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015315.html
[5] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015356.html
[6] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=61042
[7] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015276.html
[8] https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/695
[9] https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/78
[10] https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/5072
[11] https://www.cyclestreets.net/help/journey/osmconversion/#toc9
[12] https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79
[13] https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/226

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 17:15, Daniel Westergren  wrote:

> Yeah, the main problem is that a path can be anything and everything can
> be a path.
>
> I mostly use JOSM and prefer presets to remember to tag all relevant
> attributes. That means that a combined foot- and cycleway becomes a path...
> In Sweden, 99% of all cycleways are open to pedestrians and there are few
> footways where bicycles are forbidden. Thus, almost everything becomes a
> path
>
> I was even recommended by one of the most experienced Swedish mappers to
> use highway=footway for a natural forest path a couple of weeks ago...
> Which turns the mess the other way, that what really should be a path
> suddenly can be a footway and then we don't even know how to interpret
> footways... unless other tags, like surface etc. are used, which in a lot
> of cases they are not.
>
> For those combined urban foot- and cycleways, probably something like
> highway=footcycleway should have been introduced instead, to reserve path
> for the cases we're discussing here (which basically implies that it's not
> necessarily accessible to everyone, even if smoothness, sac_scale,
> mtb:scale etc. can be used to specify the difficulty/accessibility of the
> path).
>

The way I see it is there are two main views of highway=footway,path in
OSM.

1. Is that footway is urban and path is remote/forest
2. Is that footway is for primary walking paths (including remote/forest
paths) and that path is for non-specified usage or mixed use paths
(including urban paths).

These are conflicting and it does seem that OSM has a mix of both styles.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Peter Elderson]

Daniel Westergren:

> And a path should never get surface=paved, asphalt or similar, because
> then it's not a path, but a footway or cycleway.
>

Sorry that's too strict. I often can't tell from the pavement what the use
or access is. Lots of paths get an asphalt layer for ease of maintenance,
that doesn't tell you it's a footway or a cycleway. It's just a path made
easier.

If I come across an unmapped path with no visible designation, do I not map
it because I don't know what it's for? My solution is: I don't map it
unless I need it in a route I'm mapping. In that case, it's a path, nothing
else. That's all we know.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

> Would it be wrong to set sac_scale=hiking on an urban footway? I’m worried
> that we’ll get highway=path, foot=designated, cycle=designated,
> surface=paved, width=2.5, lit=yes, rubbish_bins_every=100m,
> sac_scale=hiking.
>

Same with mtb:scale.

A footway or cycleway should, in my opinion, never have sac_scale or
mtb:scale, unless we introduce explicit values like sac_scale=no and
mtb:scale=no. If it has sac_scale=hiking or above, or mtb:scale=0 or above
(remember, mtb:scale is based on the *Singletrail *Scale and even a value
of 0 should only be used for a singletrail), then it's not a footway or
cycleway, but a path. And if it has a sac_scale or mtb:scale value, then we
should already tell by that, that it's not accessible to everyone.

And a path should never get surface=paved, asphalt or similar, because then
it's not a path, but a footway or cycleway.

But again, with the current use of highway=path it can be and is used for
anything. That's why depend on subtags (trolltags) and that's what we need
to get away from.

So yes, if we could separate footway, cycleway and path clearly from each
other, then we can know that a path is always (if it's used correctly) used
for unpaved paths that may not be accessible to people of all abilities.

As for "hiking paths", it's also a word that confuses me. I think we're
here talking about the way (that has certain physical characteristics), not
the route, however people may use them (anyone can hike on a path, whether
it's part of a route or not). And if we can't organize paths hierarchically
like roads, then also context becomes irrelevant when separating footway
and cycleway from path.

/Daniel
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:17:20AM +0200, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> I interpreted "random person" as meaning "random traffic, not destined
> for your uncle's residence".
> 
> But perhaps you meant that the person is in fact a visitor destined
> for your uncle's residence – maybe trying to sell something or
> conducting a poll or whatever – and that doing so would be illegal? If
> so, in what way is it "clear" to the visitor that what they're doing
> is illegal?

I guess 90% of the typical driveways are "cul de sac" anyway - So there
cant be any through traffic. Technically the ones driving on that
way have a clear intent and will be visitors.

So tagging cul-de-sac with destination is nice - but basically a "no
op" for many reasons (Already has penalty in routing, technically no
through traffic possible etc etc)

Thats the point with the whole driveway discussion. Tagging any further
restriction on a driveway does at best change nothing, worst 
case make it unusable. You wont _gain_ anything.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. May 2020, at 12:44, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> What we are discussing now is how to make sure that a hiking path (not a 
> foot-cycle-way) is tagged correctly as such.


can you explain what you mean by the word hiking path? Is it about the purpose 
(only useful for hiking, mostly used for hiking, constructed for hikers, etc.) 
or about the physical characteristics (width, surface, composition) or about 
the context (mountain area, wilderness, outside of builtup area, etc.)? 

Cheers Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Ture Pålsson via Tagging]

> 27 maj 2020 kl. 12:42 skrev Volker Schmidt :
> 
> 
> 
> […]how to indicate that a path is a hiking trail. It has been proposed to 
> introduce a new value path=trail or path=hiking for that purpose. 
> As we do already have the sac_scale tagging for level of difficulty of hiking 
> paths and the lowest level of that is sac_scale=hiking. This would correspond 
> exactly, in my view, to the new proposed tag value(s) without introducing a 
> new tagging.
> sac_scale=hiking is used 319 785 times - so I do not see a need to create a 
> new tagging meaning exactly the same thing.
> 

Would it be wrong to set sac_scale=hiking on an urban footway? I’m worried that 
we’ll get highway=path, foot=designated, cycle=designated, surface=paved, 
width=2.5, lit=yes, rubbish_bins_every=100m, sac_scale=hiking.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Volker Schmidt]

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:30, Daniel Westergren  wrote:

> To confuse things more (or maybe less...), I just realized that iD is
> using highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated for a "Cycle
> and foot path". But in JOSM, the preset for the same is using
> highway=path...  Similarly, iD is using highway=footway as default for a
> sidewalk.
>

Daniel,

this difference in presets between JOSM and iD for foot-cycle-ways is well
known. And there are more than just these two variants, unfortunately..
I have been saying all the way that we have to live with these - it is much
too late to re-tag them.
What we are discussing now is how to make sure that a hiking path (not a
foot-cycle-way) is tagged correctly as such.
This is not helped by the fact that we do have hundreds of thousands of
ways that are tagged as highway=path and we are discussing how to indicate
that a path is a hiking trail. It has been proposed to introduce a new
value path=trail or path=hiking for that purpose.
As we do already have the sac_scale tagging for level of difficulty of
hiking paths and the lowest level of that is sac_scale=hiking. This would
correspond exactly, in my view, to the new proposed tag value(s) without
introducing a new tagging.
sac_scale=hiking is used 319 785 times - so I do not see a need to create a
new tagging meaning exactly the same thing.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

To confuse things more (or maybe less...), I just realized that iD is using
highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated for a "Cycle and foot
path". But in JOSM, the preset for the same is using highway=path...
Similarly, iD is using highway=footway as default for a sidewalk.

So basically iD already has a way to avoid highway=path for these combined
foot- and cycleways? But JOSM's preset is messing it up, as is the "you can
use this or you can use that, as you wish" text for highway=path in the
wiki.

iD doesn't seem to include "Cycle and foot path" in the hierarchy under
"Paths" though, so unless you specifically search for that kind of path,
you'll  have to make a choice between footway, cycleway or path.

So is it, as others have suggested, the vague "anything goes"-description
in the wiki and JOSM's presets that have messed up the distinction between
cycleway, footway and path? The core of the issue is obviously that some
people think that path can be used equally for a combined footway/cycleway,
sidewalk etc. that is not specifically designated for ONLY pedestrians OR
cyclists.

/Daniel

Den ons 27 maj 2020 kl 09:03 skrev Daniel Westergren :

> Yeah, the main problem is that a path can be anything and everything can
> be a path.
>
> I mostly use JOSM and prefer presets to remember to tag all relevant
> attributes. That means that a combined foot- and cycleway becomes a path...
> In Sweden, 99% of all cycleways are open to pedestrians and there are few
> footways where bicycles are forbidden. Thus, almost everything becomes a
> path
>
> I was even recommended by one of the most experienced Swedish mappers to
> use highway=footway for a natural forest path a couple of weeks ago...
> Which turns the mess the other way, that what really should be a path
> suddenly can be a footway and then we don't even know how to interpret
> footways... unless other tags, like surface etc. are used, which in a lot
> of cases they are not.
>
> For those combined urban foot- and cycleways, probably something like
> highway=footcycleway should have been introduced instead, to reserve path
> for the cases we're discussing here (which basically implies that it's not
> necessarily accessible to everyone, even if smoothness, sac_scale,
> mtb:scale etc. can be used to specify the difficulty/accessibility of the
> path).
>
> Kevin wrote:
>
>
> *It comes down to two basic questions:- What is the minimum set of
> information that a mapper needs to assert, to have a bicycle or pedestrian
> router assess that a way is usable by a pedestrian or cyclist of ordinary
> ability?- What is the minimum set of information that a data consumer needs
> to take into account when making that assessment?  *
>
> Great questions!
>
> Like others have said, I would love if ALL paved footways, cycleways and
> combined foot- and cycleways ALWAYS were tagged with something else than
> path. For that we only have footway and cycleway and when the choice is
> difficult, the path mess has told us to use path together with
> foot|bicycle=designated.
>
> But like Kevin is implying, that a way is designated for pedestrians
> and/or bicycles doesn't mean that any walker or bicyclist can use them.
> Sometimes such a designated way SHOULD be highway=path, while in most cases
> they should probably not. And when they are not, data consumers need to
> assume that people of any ability can use it.
>
> *Two conclusions from the discussions, as I see it*:
>
>- highway=trail or similary would make no difference, as what we seem
>to be after is to make highway=path mean the same thing.
>- The main issue is to use a tagging system that is easy for mappers
>to use and easy for data consumers to interpret. For
>highway=path|footway|cycleway that is currently definitely not the case.
>- Accessibility would likely be an important consideration when
>deciding whether to use path or footway|cycleway|[footcycleway]
>
>
> *Could we perhaps summarize suggestions to something like the following?*
>
>1. Clarify the wiki and editor descriptions to ALWAYS use footway or
>cycleway for urban, paved foot- and/or cycleways that are accessbile to
>people of all abilities. The difficulty will be the cases when a way can be
>used by either. Then we would still depend on subtags to specify that it
>can actually be used by both pedestrians and cyclists.
>2. Clarify the wiki and editor descriptions to NEVER use path for
>these "urban foot- and/or cycleways", in order for data consumers to never
>use highway=path for people with disabilities, normal bicycles etc, unless
>tags like smoothness imply that they are still accessible to most (but
>probably not all).
>3. Possibly introduce a new tag for those cases of combined usage for
>urban foot- and cycleways (whether paved or with other smooth, prepared
>surfaces to make them accessible for most), in order to NOT use
>highway=path (like presets 

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 27 May 2020 08:26:55 +0200
Colin Smale  wrote:

> On 2020-05-26 19:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> 
> > May 26, 2020, 19:19 by f...@zz.de: 
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via
> > Tagging wrote: May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: 
> >   
> >> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding 
> >> (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing
> >> (bicycle=dismount). Bikes are only completely forbidden if
> >> bicycle=no/private. 
> > bicycle=no does not mean that you cannot push bicycle 
> > bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount are de facto equivalents 
> > we have no widely used tag to indicate "walking with bicycle is
> > illegal here" 
> > 
> > Is it that in every jurisdication a cyclist pushing his bike is 
> > considered a pedestrian?  
> 
> Sometimes pushing bicycles is explicitly forbidden. 
> 
> It is highly conceivable that some rules, in some territories, apply
> to the bike as a vehicle, whereas others apply to the activity. Spot
> the difference between "no cycles" and "no cycling". If the rule says
> "no cycles", I guess that means you can't push it either. 

Easy example of that: in the United States, bicycles are forbidden in
federal Wilderness Areas.  It doesn't matter if you're riding the
bicycle, pushing it, or carrying it on your shoulder.  You might be
able to get away with completely disassembling it and carrying the
pieces in your backpack, but I don't know if anyone's tried it.

(People have gotten in trouble from other attempts at getting around
the "no form of mechanical transport" rule, such as climbing out of a
hovering helicopter.)

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 26, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> For me highway=footway and highway=path without any other tags are the same 
> thing. Introducing yet another tag for similar paths/footways may lead to 
> more confused tagging of these things.
> I think the use of sub tags would lead to cleaner tagging.
> 
Therein lies the issue.

For me footway [1] and path [2] are distinctly different. The photos are from a 
blog post of mine regarding rendering of trail distances [3].

Cheers!
Tod

[1] 
https://retiredtechie.fitchfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/IMG_0420-768x1024.jpg
[2] 
https://retiredtechie.fitchfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/IMG_0425-768x1024.jpg
[3] 
https://retiredtechie.fitchfamily.org/2020/02/17/distance-between-trail-junctions/


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

Yeah, the main problem is that a path can be anything and everything can be
a path.

I mostly use JOSM and prefer presets to remember to tag all relevant
attributes. That means that a combined foot- and cycleway becomes a path...
In Sweden, 99% of all cycleways are open to pedestrians and there are few
footways where bicycles are forbidden. Thus, almost everything becomes a
path

I was even recommended by one of the most experienced Swedish mappers to
use highway=footway for a natural forest path a couple of weeks ago...
Which turns the mess the other way, that what really should be a path
suddenly can be a footway and then we don't even know how to interpret
footways... unless other tags, like surface etc. are used, which in a lot
of cases they are not.

For those combined urban foot- and cycleways, probably something like
highway=footcycleway should have been introduced instead, to reserve path
for the cases we're discussing here (which basically implies that it's not
necessarily accessible to everyone, even if smoothness, sac_scale,
mtb:scale etc. can be used to specify the difficulty/accessibility of the
path).

Kevin wrote:


*It comes down to two basic questions:- What is the minimum set of
information that a mapper needs to assert, to have a bicycle or pedestrian
router assess that a way is usable by a pedestrian or cyclist of ordinary
ability?- What is the minimum set of information that a data consumer needs
to take into account when making that assessment?  *

Great questions!

Like others have said, I would love if ALL paved footways, cycleways and
combined foot- and cycleways ALWAYS were tagged with something else than
path. For that we only have footway and cycleway and when the choice is
difficult, the path mess has told us to use path together with
foot|bicycle=designated.

But like Kevin is implying, that a way is designated for pedestrians and/or
bicycles doesn't mean that any walker or bicyclist can use them. Sometimes
such a designated way SHOULD be highway=path, while in most cases they
should probably not. And when they are not, data consumers need to assume
that people of any ability can use it.

*Two conclusions from the discussions, as I see it*:

   - highway=trail or similary would make no difference, as what we seem to
   be after is to make highway=path mean the same thing.
   - The main issue is to use a tagging system that is easy for mappers to
   use and easy for data consumers to interpret. For
   highway=path|footway|cycleway that is currently definitely not the case.
   - Accessibility would likely be an important consideration when deciding
   whether to use path or footway|cycleway|[footcycleway]


*Could we perhaps summarize suggestions to something like the following?*

   1. Clarify the wiki and editor descriptions to ALWAYS use footway or
   cycleway for urban, paved foot- and/or cycleways that are accessbile to
   people of all abilities. The difficulty will be the cases when a way can be
   used by either. Then we would still depend on subtags to specify that it
   can actually be used by both pedestrians and cyclists.
   2. Clarify the wiki and editor descriptions to NEVER use path for these
   "urban foot- and/or cycleways", in order for data consumers to never use
   highway=path for people with disabilities, normal bicycles etc, unless tags
   like smoothness imply that they are still accessible to most (but probably
   not all).
   3. Possibly introduce a new tag for those cases of combined usage for
   urban foot- and cycleways (whether paved or with other smooth, prepared
   surfaces to make them accessible for most), in order to NOT use
   highway=path (like presets now do) for that.


Is introducing a new combined tag worth the effort? If not, how can we
point mappers to use existing tags in a way that makes the tagging useful?

/Daniel



Den ons 27 maj 2020 kl 07:43 skrev Ture Pålsson via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
> 27 maj 2020 kl. 06:54 skrev Yves :
> […]
> I'm as fool as you, and always mapped the paved, urban-style as
> highway=footway and the ones in the wilderness as highway =path.
>
>
> So have I, and so have, as far as I can tell from the areas I am familiar
> with, most mappers in Sweden.
>
> Not all of them, however, and given the current state of the Wiki, I can’t
> really say that those others are *wrong*.
>
> And if I draw a new way in JOSM, and then pick the preset which has the
> ”white walkers above white bicycle on a blue background” [1] icon, which is
> what I would do as a naïve mapper to map an urban cycleway (most of them
> are shared around here, to the annoyance of cyclists and pedestrians
> alike), I get highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=designated.
>
> So, as I have said before, when rendering a map and faced with a
> highway=footway or highway=path I can always make an initial guess about
> how to render it, but I have to be prepared to consider at least
> *=designated, surface and width as well.
>
> [1]

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-27 08:17, Arne Johannessen wrote:

> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote: May 26, 
> 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote: 
> Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for delivery 
> services?
> My uncle has farm, with clearly private yard (it is unsigned).
> 
> Postman or package delivery would be welcomed there and - even if package 
> would not be requested, but random person driving to
> front of his house would not be and AFAIK would violate law. 
> I think what you're describing is access=destination, not =private.

Why? 
I interpreted "random person" as meaning "random traffic, not destined
for your uncle's residence".

But perhaps you meant that the person is in fact a visitor destined for
your uncle's residence - maybe trying to sell something or conducting a
poll or whatever - and that doing so would be illegal? If so, in what
way is it "clear" to the visitor that what they're doing is illegal? 
It wouldn't be illegal, it might be unlawful, which is a slightly
different concept. If it went to court, I am sure the judge would
consider whether the visitor had "reasonable grounds" to go to the door.
Door-to-door selling (assuming that activity is permitted in general)
would probably be "reasonable grounds", unless your uncle had put up a
sign like "no salesmen." But then again, if the visitor rang the bell at
4 in the morning, he had better have a good story. 

In the UK simple trespass to land is not illegal, it is for the
landowner to claim under civil law: "unjustifiable interference with
land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another".
What constitutes "unjustifiable" is the key here. Delivering a package
would sound like justification to me (IANAL). 

>> "access=destination" means "no transit traffic, no other restrictions".
> 
> Not quite. access=destination means "traffic for a particular destination 
> only". When used on a residential driveway, the destination would be the 
> residence itself (or perhaps a garage attached to it). 
> 
> access=private means even traffic destined for that residence is disallowed, 
> including both salesmen and postmen.

But it is allowed with implicit/explicit permission... 

> access=permissive means any traffic is allowed (e. g. random kids racing 
> their motor scooters).

...but that permission/tolerance on the part of the landowner can be
withdrawn at any time - your right to use that highway is not set in
law, it is permitted by the landowner for the time being. 

Actually one could claim that motorways and other "special roads" in the
UK might actually come into this category - they are explicitly not
public highways. 

> At least that's how I see it. I know not everyone agrees, and I'm not sure if 
> that's due to misunderstanding (possibly on my part?) or due to lack of 
> consensus.
> 
> What changes nothing for a typical driveway.
> Depends on the area I guess. But yes, I would say that to me, 
> access=destination does seem like a sensible default value for driveways in 
> OSM.
> 
> [access=private wiki page]
> 
> It also doesn't make a clear enough distinction between private ownership and 
> private access (by using the term "private" colloqiually and by showing a 
> picture of what looks like an ownership=private situation).Changed a bit in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:access%3Dprivate=1995183=1986562
> Yes, that's slightly better.
> 
> I think the =private wiki page could be improved by clarifying that =private 
> really does require _explicit_ prior permission.I added "Permission may be 
> implicit, for example delivering a package into a house."
> on Key:Access and Tag:access=private pages, as it appears to match the actual 
> usage.
> I disagree with this edit for the reasons explained at some length in my 
> previous message.

I disagree that permission needs to be explicit for access=private. You
need permission, that's all. And that permission is in the exclusive
gift of the landowner (or their delegate). However with
access=permissive you may assume that permission is granted, whereas
with access=private permission is not granted by default (you need to
ascertain that you have permission, be it explicit or implicit). 

> Also: Can you explain how one would _implicitly_ arrange permission on an 
> _individual_ basis?

You don't need to arrange "implicit" permission. If you did, it would
become "explicit" permission.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-26 19:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

> May 26, 2020, 19:19 by f...@zz.de: 
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
> wrote: 
> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: 
> 
>> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding 
>> (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount). 
>> Bikes are only completely forbidden if bicycle=no/private. 
>> 
> bicycle=no does not mean that you cannot push bicycle 
> bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount are de facto equivalents 
> we have no widely used tag to indicate "walking with bicycle is illegal here" 
> 
> Is it that in every jurisdication a cyclist pushing his bike is 
> considered a pedestrian?

Sometimes pushing bicycles is explicitly forbidden. 

It is highly conceivable that some rules, in some territories, apply to
the bike as a vehicle, whereas others apply to the activity. Spot the
difference between "no cycles" and "no cycling". If the rule says "no
cycles", I guess that means you can't push it either. 

Is it allowed to push a bicycle through a red traffic light, or the
wrong way down a one-way street? You are not cycling, but it is still a
vehicle. In the UK the law applies to "vehicular traffic" including
someone who is "driving or propelling a vehicle" and fines have been
issued...___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Arne Johannessen]

Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:
> May 26, 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de:
>> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for delivery 
>>> services?
>>> My uncle has farm, with clearly private yard (it is unsigned).
>>> 
>>> Postman or package delivery would be welcomed there and - even if package 
>>> would not be requested, but random person driving to
>>> front of his house would not be and AFAIK would violate law.
>> 
>> I think what you're describing is access=destination, not =private.
> 
> Why?

I interpreted "random person" as meaning "random traffic, not destined for your 
uncle's residence".

But perhaps you meant that the person is in fact a visitor destined for your 
uncle's residence – maybe trying to sell something or conducting a poll or 
whatever – and that doing so would be illegal? If so, in what way is it "clear" 
to the visitor that what they're doing is illegal?


> "access=destination" means "no transit traffic, no other restrictions".

Not quite. access=destination means "traffic for a particular destination 
only". When used on a residential driveway, the destination would be the 
residence itself (or perhaps a garage attached to it).

access=private means even traffic destined for that residence is disallowed, 
including both salesmen and postmen.

access=permissive means any traffic is allowed (e. g. random kids racing their 
motor scooters).

At least that's how I see it. I know not everyone agrees, and I'm not sure if 
that's due to misunderstanding (possibly on my part?) or due to lack of 
consensus.


> What changes nothing for a typical driveway.

Depends on the area I guess. But yes, I would say that to me, 
access=destination does seem like a sensible default value for driveways in OSM.


>> [access=private wiki page]
>> 
>> It also doesn't make a clear enough distinction between private ownership 
>> and private access (by using the term "private" colloqiually and by showing 
>> a picture of what looks like an ownership=private situation).
> Changed a bit in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:access%3Dprivate=1995183=1986562

Yes, that's slightly better.


>> I think the =private wiki page could be improved by clarifying that =private 
>> really does require _explicit_ prior permission.
> I added "Permission may be implicit, for example delivering a package into a 
> house."
> on Key:Access and Tag:access=private pages, as it appears to match the actual 
> usage.

I disagree with this edit for the reasons explained at some length in my 
previous message.

Also: Can you explain how one would _implicitly_ arrange permission on an 
_individual_ basis?

Can you point to evidence supporting your claim of actual usage? It's already 
been pointed out in this discussion (by Florian Lohoff on talk) that routing 
software treats access=private as access=no. Keeping in mind that a delivery 
person might very well use OSM for navigation, this seems to be strong evidence 
to the contrary.

Can you explain the procedure a delivery person would need to follow to 
determine whether or not they in fact legally have "implicit" permission in 
your jurisdiction?


-- 
Arne Johannessen



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging