Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 13/07/2020 17.46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:

Jul 13, 2020, 20:29 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:

It is still required to use a separate account for manually audited changes?


Is it going to be "by comparing dataset X and OSM I found places to map roads 
that I added
using aerial images"? Or more of "manually copied and verified geometries from 
external dataset"?


So far, I've done a bunch of stuff (on my own account) using the GIS 
data more as a supplemental reference layer, i.e. I haven't 
*technically* imported anything (but *have* hand-added some roads and 
other features and hand-edited others).


At some point, I am likely going to need to do a mass import of 
buildings, and that almost certainly *will* be an import.


--
Matthew

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways

[Jmapb]

On 7/14/2020 7:44 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:

Around me the norm is that residential driveways (98% of them) are not
signed no trespassing, but that it is considered reasonable to use them
if 1) you live there 2) you are delivering something 3) you are a guest
4) you are going there for some other reason widely considered legit,
like "I'm a new neightbor and saying hello".

It is not reasonable to just drive up them because you feel like it, get
out of your car, stand there for two minutes, get back in and leave.
That will typically result in someone calling the police.  If it were
access=yes, like a real road, that would still be odd, but not
actionable.

So I don't think access=permissive is proper for residential driveways
unless there is good reason to believe that.   It probably is a good fit
for private roads in neighborhoods that don't have a culture of no
trespassing signs where many people come and go.


I completely agree. Mappers should have a good and verifiable reason to
tag access=permissive on any road, and preferably they should record
what that reason is. I've seen situations where a driveway could
conceivably be tagged access=permissive, but it's rare.


As for access=private 'breaking' routing, this discussion feels very
much like tagging for the router, instead of tagging what is and fixing
the router.  If you are driving someplace and you have permission, then
it should be expected that you can use access=private ways to get to
your destination.  Humans konw this, and while most people wouldn't
randomly drive down other people's driveways, it's obvious that if you
are invited to a house it's ok to use their driveway.

So a router that does not allow use of access=private for a final
segment, by default, is broken.


Tagging for the router is definitely a cousin of tagging for the
renderer. But both the router and the renderer are useful for
maintaining map quality. If something breaks the default
openstreetmap.org map, it's worth some scrutiny. Same with something
that breaks OSRM.

And the full rule as I know it is "don't tag *incorrectly* for the
renderer." Ditto for the router. I would never suggest removing a
legitimate verifiable access=private tag just to make a particular route
work. But that doesn't mean that the router's behavior can't influence
tagging at all.


Suppose there is a house with a driveway that connects two roads with
the house in the middle, that's access=private.  A router should not use
that segment unless the destination is on that property.  That's why I
said that routers should allow a final segement of private, but not a
transition to private and a transition back.


This is the *exact* scenario that access=destination is designed for.
Routing software should allow a route to access=destination ways, but
never through them as a short cut.


Residential driveways around me are tagged access=private.  I think it's
wrong to change that.


And I feel exactly the same about access=private as I do about
access=permissive: Mappers should have a good and verifiable reason to
tag access=private on any road, and preferably they should record what
that reason is.

If mappers (or importers) have decided by fiat that all driveways should
be access=private, I believe they've done a disservice to the map and so
removing that tag is probably correct. If they're simply trying to
encode unsigned local law or custom, that's explicitly against the
community best practices. If they're pulling from a reliable
imports-list-approved open data source or tagging based on surveyed
signage, well then, high-fives all around.


I am really just saing that a driveway to a house should not be tagged
access=yes because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen.  That is a complete
violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that
access should be yes.


Agreed. Mappers should have a good and verifiable reason to tag
access=yes. But don't conflate the absence of an access tag with an
explicit access=yes, even if software treats them the same.


B) the owner expects the normal social customs to be followed, of
useonly for invited guests, deliveries/etc. and actual neighborly
visits,and doesn't put a up a no trespassing sign because it's
prickly, notbecause they want random people doing random things ==>
access=private


Here we disagree. I believe access=private means permission is required
to legally use the way. Implied permission by social custom is not the
same thing. And in the real world, a driveway and a private road that
requires permission are very different. Those accustomed to ignoring the
"part of your route is on private roads" warning on their GPS because of
access=private driveways may find themselves in for a quite a shock when
they're confronted by an angry hunting club member on an access=private
road through the woods, where the public route would have taken 5
minutes longer if they hadn't turned left an hour ago but is now it's a
2-hour detour.


I can 

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:46 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:


> So a router that does not allow use of access=private for a final
> segment, by default, is broken.
+1
Even if we go with the idea that driveways are not access=private unless
posted, there are some driveways that are posted, and people (delivery
people, service people, invited guests. etc.) will need to be routed to the
residences at the end of those driveways. The router should just give a
warning to the user, such as "the final nn miles/km of your route are on
private roads".

Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways

[Adam Franco]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 7:46 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:

> ...
>
> As for access=private 'breaking' routing, this discussion feels very
> much like tagging for the router, instead of tagging what is and fixing
> the router.  If you are driving someplace and you have permission, then
> it should be expected that you can use access=private ways to get to
> your destination.  Humans konw this, and while most people wouldn't
> randomly drive down other people's driveways, it's obvious that if you
> are invited to a house it's ok to use their driveway.
>
> So a router that does not allow use of access=private for a final
> segment, by default, is broken.
>

There is a big problem with this interpretation of tagging ways with
access=private that are not posted/gated to prevent access but are not used
by convention/norm: Doing this makes it impossible to distinguish these
from roads that *are* gated/posted.

As an example, a local airport has gated service roads and driveways
 to
get to a variety of maintenance and airline buildings. These are
appropriately access=private because they are gated and only employees can
use them. Routers need to be able to direct customers/public via the
close-by access=public/destination/customers roads and not try to use the
access=private roads. If access=private is used for most residential
driveways and routers need to treat access=private as a thing to be ignored
for final routing, they will get this airport situation wrong.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways

[Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:15 AM, Matthew Woehlke  
wrote:

> The (possible) problem with having access implied by service=driveway is
> that a lot of access roads to stores/businesses/offices are also
> service=driveway... although I suppose you could argue these have the
> same semantics; you shouldn't be using them unless you're actually going
> to the location to which they provide access. (Which isn't to say that
> no one ever violates this...)

This ^^^ is, I believe, the crux of the matter.  Driveways shouldn't (or should 
rarely be) access=private as they are actually access=destination.  There are 
obvious times when you WANT someone to use your driveway.  Are there times to 
mark a highway=* as access=private?  Sure.  But I don't think driveways should 
be, by default, thought of as private when they are expected to be used by 
people with a valid need to access the property.  I believe that's what 
access=destination was designed for.  It works on driveways and it works on 
neighborhood streets in gated communities (keeps the router from trying to 
route through the neighborhood) if my understanding is correct (at least it's 
worked well for me).

R,
Eric "Sparks"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail
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=wdt9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 14/07/2020 09.44, Alex Hennings wrote:

Regarding:

a driveway to a house should not be tagged access=yes
because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen.  That is a complete
violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that
access should be yes.

*Given our defaults, no access tag is equivalent> to that.*

You're saying *omitting* a tag violates *verifiability*. That doesn't
compute. Requiring tags to be verifiable with evidence specifically means
the opposite of that. But that might get us closer to the source of
disagreement. You and I interpret a *missing* access tag differently. *You
read a missing access tag to mean access=yes*. (Is there documentation to
support that somewhere? or... why do you think that?)


That's how iD represents it.

There is, of course, a solution to this... propose a new value with the 
appropriate semantics.


The (possible) problem with having access implied by service=driveway is 
that a lot of access roads to stores/businesses/offices are also 
service=driveway... although I suppose you could argue these have the 
same semantics; you shouldn't be using them unless you're actually going 
to the location to which they provide access. (Which isn't to say that 
no one ever violates this...)


--
Matthew

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways

[Alex Hennings]

Regarding:
> a driveway to a house should not be tagged access=yes
> because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen.  That is a complete
> violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that
> access should be yes.
*Given our defaults, no access tag is equivalent> to that.*

You're saying *omitting* a tag violates *verifiability*. That doesn't
compute. Requiring tags to be verifiable with evidence specifically means
the opposite of that. But that might get us closer to the source of
disagreement. You and I interpret a *missing* access tag differently. *You
read a missing access tag to mean access=yes*. (Is there documentation to
support that somewhere? or... why do you think that?)

I read a missing access tag to mean access=unknown, and "we don't yet have
evidence of what the access restricts are" and "someone should find out and
add a tag" and "until then, *use your best judgement based on context,
because this is a service=driveway*". This opinion is supported by
service=driveway
documentation
: "There
is no defined default access tag for driveways".

A missing access tag surely needs to be interpreted based on context. For
example, consider a military base vs a playground. An explicit access tag
says "trust me, I have found evidence of this". We're discussing how to use
the access tag to describe a driveway, but that's solved with
service=driveway.

-Alex
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Jul 14, 2020, 13:17 by jm...@gmx.com:

> On 7/14/2020 4:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  via Talk-us wrote:
>
>>
>> Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by >> jm...@gmx.com>> :
>>
>>> If there was reason to believe you needed explicit  permission to 
>>> be on
>>> that way, then access=private would be correct.
>>>
>> I am unsure what is the best way to tag "explicit permissionnot 
>> required,
>> implicit permission is required" case. (it is not a bigproblem in 
>> Poland
>> where nearly all such roads will have a gate anyway, bumpingit 
>> into access=private)
>>
>
> I'm really not sure how to interpret "Implicit permission is  required." 
> To my mind, if permission is implicit, it's not  required 
> (access=permissive) and if permission is required, it's  not implicit 
> (access=private.)
>
>
You can go if you have a valid reason, even if not explicitly invited or 
permitted 
("hello, I am a new neighbor").

You are now allowed if you have no valid reason ("I used this road to make 
shortcut" or
"hello, I am a creepy stalker" or "hello, I am an onbnoxious peddler")
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways

[Greg Troxel]

Tod Fitch  writes:

> There are “gated communities” where you can’t get in unless you have a
> card key or speak with a gate keeper. Those should, I think, have
> access=private as you need explicit permission on each entry.
>
> But for the case where the road is privately owned but the owner
> allows access without prior consent, access=permissive seems to be a
> good fit.

access=permissive is good when mappers know that the owner is ok with
people using the road.

access=yes is defined to mean that the public has a *right* of access.
A driveway to a a house very definitely does not meet that test.

Around me the norm is that residential driveways (98% of them) are not
signed no trespassing, but that it is considered reasonable to use them
if 1) you live there 2) you are delivering something 3) you are a guest
4) you are going there for some other reason widely considered legit,
like "I'm a new neightbor and saying hello".

It is not reasonable to just drive up them because you feel like it, get
out of your car, stand there for two minutes, get back in and leave.
That will typically result in someone calling the police.  If it were
access=yes, like a real road, that would still be odd, but not
actionable.

So I don't think access=permissive is proper for residential driveways
unless there is good reason to believe that.   It probably is a good fit
for private roads in neighborhoods that don't have a culture of no
trespassing signs where many people come and go.

As for access=private 'breaking' routing, this discussion feels very
much like tagging for the router, instead of tagging what is and fixing
the router.  If you are driving someplace and you have permission, then
it should be expected that you can use access=private ways to get to
your destination.  Humans konw this, and while most people wouldn't
randomly drive down other people's driveways, it's obvious that if you
are invited to a house it's ok to use their driveway.

So a router that does not allow use of access=private for a final
segment, by default, is broken.

(OSM's data model is not rich enough to label private with who has
permission when.  That's what is really needed to make this work.)

Suppose there is a house with a driveway that connects two roads with
the house in the middle, that's access=private.  A router should not use
that segment unless the destination is on that property.  That's why I
said that routers should allow a final segement of private, but not a
transition to private and a transition back.

Residential driveways around me are tagged access=private.  I think it's
wrong to change that.

I won't argue that tiger imported data gets this right.  I am really
just saing that a driveway to a house should not be tagged access=yes
because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen.  That is a complete
violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that
access should be yes.  Given our defaults, no access tag is equivalent
to that.  If you can see it is a residential driveway and it is not
signed no trespassing, the two possibilities are:

  A) the owner is truly ok with random usage of the driveway *other than
  for legit purposes to visit or help the owner  ==> acesss=permisssive

  B) the owner expects the normal social customs to be followed, of use
  only for invited guests, deliveries/etc. and actual neighborly visits,
  and doesn't put a up a no trespassing sign because it's prickly, not
  because they want random people doing random things ==> access=private

  C is not a possibilty) The driveway is really legally a public way.
  (Well, anyone can be confused, but public way status can be looked up
  at town hall, making it entirely verifiable.)

When looking at such a driveway, one cannot tell for sure which is the
case of A and B.  But at least around me, it's 99.9% B, and thus "looks
like a residential driveway" is the verfiable backup for access=private.



I can certainly see a case for "access=destination" for these driveways,
with semantics that IF you have a reason to go to the house, you may use
the driveway.  But that's still access=private for the house and
arguably the land, and just moves things around in a way that I think
makes routing and data interpetation harder, and is thus a bad idea.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

On 7/14/2020 4:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:


Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by jm...@gmx.com:

On 7/13/2020 4:09 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:


The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be
private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to
someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery,
obviously,
has business there.)


...this seems to be the definition of access=destination?


I'd say yes, that access=destination is closest to how I interpret
most
driveways: you can walk/drive along the driveway if you have a good
reason, eg to make a delivery or an inquiry.

access=destination mean "no transit", not "with valid reason".

access=destination on driveway means "cannot be used by transit",
not "can be used if owner presumably agrees".

access=destination has the same meaning as access=yes on ways
that are not usable for transit (for example driveway attached to
a single road on one end and leading into house)


Yes, I believe I understand the distinction here. (Which is why I said
"closest" -- it's not exactly right.)

By my understanding, access=destination means "You may use this way if
this is your destination." There are three implications here:
1 - It's more permissive than access=private. You don't need to ask to
use this way.
2 - It's less permissive than access=yes/permissive. You *only* have
permission if this is your destination. (I said "a good reason" which is
not exactly the same thing, though close.)
3 - You may not traverse this way onto another way with different
access, ie, don't use it for a shortcut. (A common road sign for this in
the USA is "No Thru Traffic".)

When a dead end like a driveway is tagged with access=destination,
number 3 is irrelevant and from a routing point of view it's identical
to access=yes/permissive. But numbers 1 and 2 still apply, so from a
semantic point of view it's a little better IMO.

But as I said, I would not encourage anyone to start tagging all
driveways with access=destination. I believe it's usually a better fit
than access=private, but unless there's specific prohibitive signage I'd
recommend omitting access tags on driveways.


If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to be on
that way, then access=private would be correct.

I am unsure what is the best way to tag "explicit permission not required,
implicit permission is required" case. (it is not a big problem in Poland
where nearly all such roads will have a gate anyway, bumping it
into access=private)


I'm really not sure how to interpret "Implicit permission is required."
To my mind, if permission is implicit, it's not required
(access=permissive) and if permission is required, it's not implicit
(access=private.)

For a typical unsigned & ungated driveway in the USA, I'd describe the
implied access as "You may use this way to make a delivery, or to
immediately ring the doorbell and state your business."
Access=destination is the closest tag IMO, but I think just
service=driveway and no access tag is better.

Jason

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

On 7/13/2020 3:22 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:

Out of curiosity, I looked at the tagging of a neighborhood I know of
which has privately owned roads (maintained by the homeowner’s
association) but no gate blocking entry. There are signs indicating
that the roads are “private” but that state road regulations are
enforced. The access on those roads is currently tagged as
access=permissive.

Thinking about it, that seems correct: The roads are privately owned.
But you are free to access them unless or until the owner withdraws
permission.

There are “gated communities” where you can’t get in unless you have a
card key or speak with a gate keeper. Those should, I think, have
access=private as you need explicit permission on each entry.

But for the case where the road is privately owned but the owner
allows access without prior consent, access=permissive seems to be a
good fit.

—Tod


Permissive sounds good to me in this case.

I suspect that sometimes access=permissive is applied in error by
mappers who misunderstand the term to mean "permission is required"
rather than "permission may be presumed."

To muddle things further, another popular tag is access=permit,
undocumented but I believe it means that access is allowed for holders
of a particular permit, eg, a camping permit or fishing license. If I'm
right about this then it's similar to access=private but a little more
informative.

And of course there's access=forestry, agricultural, military, delivery,
employees, customers -- all also a little more informative.

As usual I tag what I see, and if there's knowledge that can't easily be
observed firsthand then it's a good idea to be explicit about the source
and/or add a note=* tag. But I think this thread has made clear that
merely seeing the word "private" on a road sign does not mean the road
needs access=private.

Generally I'll use access=private for any road where the owner has
clearly prohibited unauthorized public access. A controlled physical
barrier isn't required but that would certainly qualify.

.Jason



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by jm...@gmx.com:

> On 7/13/2020 4:09 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
>> On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
>>> in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house
>>> without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
>>> has business there.)
>>>
>>
>> ...this seems to be the definition of access=destination?
>>
>
> I'd say yes, that access=destination is closest to how I interpret most
> driveways: you can walk/drive along the driveway if you have a good
> reason, eg to make a delivery or an inquiry.
>
access=destination mean "no transit", not "with valid reason".

access=destination on driveway means "cannot be used by transit",
not "can be used if owner presumably agrees".

access=destination has the same meaning as access=yes on ways
that are not usable for transit (for example driveway attached to 
a single road on one end and leading into house)

> If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to be on
> that way, then access=private would be correct.
>
I am unsure what is the best way to tag "explicit permission not required,
implicit permission is required" case. (it is not a big problem in Poland
where nearly all such roads will have a gate anyway, bumping it 
into access=private)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us