Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[stevea]

Kevin Broderick  wrote:
> 
> If I understand correctly, all driveways added by Amazon Logistics (before a 
> certain point in time) have access=private, regardless of the situation on 
> the ground. If that is the case, I'd strongly advocate removing that tagging; 
> access=destination *may* be correct, but since we don't know that (i.e. there 
> are probably some number of driveways included that *are* access=private), 
> it's better to remove the tagging and let the map data reflect that 
> uncertainty rather than provide a guess based only on the regional norm for 
> driveway access (which, IMO, is already implied by service=driveway)

Thank you Kevin:  when you word it like that, I fully agree with you — this is 
a very workable solution.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

Changeset #89220282

  
>Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson 
>:
> 
>   
>On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < 
>talk-us@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>>tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i just think he 
>>picked the wrong year,
>That relation was first created in 2009.  According to the source tag, it used 
>2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably used the best available TIGER 
>data at the time.
> 
>> 
>>also all he got was a white line in his first try.
>>Way:  813726663
>That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation must close.
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
 
 
 
 ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i just think he
> picked the wrong year,
>
That relation was first created in 2009.  According to the source tag, it
used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably used the best
available TIGER data at the time.


> also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> Way: 813726663
>
That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation must close.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i just think he 
picked the wrong year,
 
also all he got was a white line in his first try.
Way: 813726663
Changeset # 89220282

  
>Monday, August 17, 2020 6:16 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson 
>:
> 
>1) Best not to delete and start over as the history will be lost.
>2) Do you have an accurate source that has a license that is compatible with 
>OSM?   Could you share a link to it?
>3) General observation is that there is a lot of territory that is not 
>enclosed by any admin level 8 boundary, which in a built up area like this, 
>seems unusual to me.
> 
>Mike  
>On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:04 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < 
>talk-us@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>>this is not the current boundary, could be more than 10 years + old, 
>> 
>>can’t the whole relation, #126598, northbrook, be deleted and then put back 
>>in.
>> 
>>i tried by hand but this is to much to trace.
>>  
>>>Monday, August 17, 2020 4:43 PM -05:00 from Paul Johnson < 
>>>ba...@ursamundi.org >:
>>> 
>>>On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:02 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < 
>>>talk-us@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
can somebody who knows how to use Tiger data fix this ?
>>> 
>>>Fix what?? 
>>>___
>>>Talk-us mailing list
>>>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ___
>>Talk-us mailing list
>>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
 
 
 
 ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Mike Thompson]

1) Best not to delete and start over as the history will be lost.
2) Do you have an accurate source that has a license that is compatible
with OSM?   Could you share a link to it?
3) General observation is that there is a lot of territory that is not
enclosed by any admin level 8 boundary, which in a built up area like this,
seems unusual to me.

Mike

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:04 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> this is not the current boundary, could be more than 10 years + old,
>
> can’t the whole relation, #126598, northbrook, be deleted and then put
> back in.
>
> i tried by hand but this is to much to trace.
>
>
> Monday, August 17, 2020 4:43 PM -05:00 from Paul Johnson <
> ba...@ursamundi.org>:
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:02 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > wrote:
>
> can somebody who knows how to use Tiger data fix this ?
>
>
> Fix what??
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

this is not the current boundary, could be more than 10 years + old, 
 
can’t the whole relation, #126598, northbrook, be deleted and then put back in.
 
i tried by hand but this is to much to trace.
  
>Monday, August 17, 2020 4:43 PM -05:00 from Paul Johnson :
> 
>On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:02 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < 
>talk-us@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>>can somebody who knows how to use Tiger data fix this ?
> 
>Fix what?? 
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
 
 
 
 ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:02 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> can somebody who knows how to use Tiger data fix this ?
>

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

[Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

can somebody who knows how to use Tiger data fix this ?
 
 ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Kevin Broderick]

If I understand correctly, all driveways added by Amazon Logistics (before
a certain point in time) have access=private, regardless of the situation
on the ground. If that is the case, I'd strongly advocate removing that
tagging; access=destination *may* be correct, but since we don't know that
(i.e. there are probably some number of driveways included that *are*
access=private), it's better to remove the tagging and let the map data
reflect that uncertainty rather than provide a guess based only on the
regional norm for driveway access (which, IMO, is already implied by
service=driveway).

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:16 PM stevea  wrote:

> There are many opinions about driveway access tags in OSM, some
> (conflicting ones) even expressed here, if briefly.  Plus, such semantics
> can be slippery and blur among regions.
>
> I believe it correct that access=private tag be removed from
> highway=service + service=driveway, as "private" seems too strict to
> accurately describe a driveway (that's part subjunctive mood where it needs
> doing, part indicative where true now).  This is especially correct when
> entered or deleted by a company performing delivery services —
> access=destination seems much more precise, and directly in that exact
> circumstance.  I only tag access=private when there is a sign explicitly
> prohibiting access, a gate which enforces this, or both.
>
> (And "I believe it correct..." is, after all, simply one person's opinion,
> it is important to remind).
>
> There is an "implied semantic" (in my mind and I believe many others') of
> how private property and driveways "work" in USA law and custom:  "If
> tagged highway=service + service=driveway, this MEANS it is on private
> property.  If you are invited by having delivery requested or are visiting
> the residence (by invitation) or business (because they are open) so
> attached to the road network, you may traverse.  Otherwise, it should be
> respected as private property, access=private is superfluous and too
> strict."
>
> In short, I'm agreeing with Tod that an access=* tag isn't explicitly
> needed, but if one is added, access=destination seems most accurate and
> seems distinctly more correct than access=private.
>
> I would ask Alex to consider the slight modification to his proposal that
> he tag driveways with access=destination, but I don't consider doing so a
> hard-and-fast requirement for me to agree (again, simply one person's
> opinion).  It would be good for both the OSM community and Amazon Logistics
> to reach a firm consensus on this, as AL will continue adding these (it's
> good for them, it's good for our map).  That AL has agreed to NOT add
> access=private is a step in the right direction.  Whether this consensus
> includes whether access=destination is correct or not awaits more agreement
> in our community first, then Amazon can hew to OSM's preferences.
> Consensus may differ in different parts of the world, as Rory (for example)
> has a better grasp on how driveways are thought of (and used, and
> most-ideally tagged in OSM) in the UK, and USA-ans (weird word, I know) I
> believe are pretty close to (if not 100% in line with) how I describe it
> above.
>
> So, no access=private on driveways (unless gated or explicitly signed as
> such), that's clear.  As for access=destination?  Requires some more
> discussion and consensus and may vary by region to conform with law and/or
> custom.  We'll get there.
>
> SteveA
> California
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[stevea]

There are many opinions about driveway access tags in OSM, some (conflicting 
ones) even expressed here, if briefly.  Plus, such semantics can be slippery 
and blur among regions.

I believe it correct that access=private tag be removed from highway=service + 
service=driveway, as "private" seems too strict to accurately describe a 
driveway (that's part subjunctive mood where it needs doing, part indicative 
where true now).  This is especially correct when entered or deleted by a 
company performing delivery services — access=destination seems much more 
precise, and directly in that exact circumstance.  I only tag access=private 
when there is a sign explicitly prohibiting access, a gate which enforces this, 
or both.

(And "I believe it correct..." is, after all, simply one person's opinion, it 
is important to remind).

There is an "implied semantic" (in my mind and I believe many others') of how 
private property and driveways "work" in USA law and custom:  "If tagged 
highway=service + service=driveway, this MEANS it is on private property.  If 
you are invited by having delivery requested or are visiting the residence (by 
invitation) or business (because they are open) so attached to the road 
network, you may traverse.  Otherwise, it should be respected as private 
property, access=private is superfluous and too strict."

In short, I'm agreeing with Tod that an access=* tag isn't explicitly needed, 
but if one is added, access=destination seems most accurate and seems 
distinctly more correct than access=private.

I would ask Alex to consider the slight modification to his proposal that he 
tag driveways with access=destination, but I don't consider doing so a 
hard-and-fast requirement for me to agree (again, simply one person's opinion). 
 It would be good for both the OSM community and Amazon Logistics to reach a 
firm consensus on this, as AL will continue adding these (it's good for them, 
it's good for our map).  That AL has agreed to NOT add access=private is a step 
in the right direction.  Whether this consensus includes whether 
access=destination is correct or not awaits more agreement in our community 
first, then Amazon can hew to OSM's preferences.  Consensus may differ in 
different parts of the world, as Rory (for example) has a better grasp on how 
driveways are thought of (and used, and most-ideally tagged in OSM) in the UK, 
and USA-ans (weird word, I know) I believe are pretty close to (if not 100% in 
line with) how I describe it above.

So, no access=private on driveways (unless gated or explicitly signed as such), 
that's clear.  As for access=destination?  Requires some more discussion and 
consensus and may vary by region to conform with law and/or custom.  We'll get 
there.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Adam Franco]

There were several threads in talk-us during July that discussed the
problems of access=private on driveways:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2020-July/thread.html

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

Long story short, if access=private is "added by default", then there is no
way to differentiate between "normal driveways" where uninvited guests
might raise eyebrows due to social convention and actually-signed/gated
driveways that explicitly prohibit access.

If access=private is "added by default" and routers are forced to ignore it
to reach the final destination, then there is no way for them to work out
which routes might actually be allowed conditionally to access the
destination when circumstances are appropriate (deliveries, political
canvassing, invited guests, etc) and which ones truly are prohibited via
signage, barriers, etc.

On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 11:48 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> Don’t recall if it was on talk-us or tagging, but yes there was a recent
> discussion on this.
>
> If I recall correctly it seemed access=destination was preferred if you
> were going to tag an access value.
>
> But since a significant number of driveways (nearly all?) are not
> physically through roads there is little danger of a router directing you
> on it unless your destination is on the driveway, so tagging an access=*
> really isn’t needed most of the time.
>
> —Tod
>
> On Aug 16, 2020, at 8:33 PM, Skyler Hawthorne  wrote:
>
> Was there a previous discussion about this that I can catch up on?
> Driveways seem like access=private is appropriate across the board, not
> just when there is explicit signage. If you drive onto someone's house's
> driveway without permission, you are trespassing on their property.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Alex Weech]

Another thing I just thought of over breakfast, in New Hampshire by default 
private land has public access, and landowners have to post that trespassing is 
not allowed. It could be that that's a quirk of this part of the world, and 
other places don't have a posting requirement, which is why there's some 
cultural disconnect.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020, at 7:35 AM, Alex Weech wrote:
> 
>> I don't map in USA, but when I map driveways in Ireland, I add 
>> `access=private`.
> 
> I'm always in favor of tags meaning the same thing everywhere, so maybe we 
> need to come up with a new access or way to map houses that don't allow 
> unannounced visitors. Maybe something like access=no_trespassing? Or maybe 
> the culture is different where you are. Does everyone put up signs saying all 
> unannounced visitors will be shot at or have the police called on them, or is 
> it just culturally assumed? Here it's maybe 5-10% that are unfriendly to 
> visitors, so the distinction is worth mapping. Or maybe just having an 
> unannounced visitor is an American thing.
> 
> - Alex (aweech)
> 
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020, at 2:54 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
>> I don't map in USA, but when I map driveways in Ireland, I add 
>> `access=private`. So I agree they should be there.
>> 
>> However, is the data that Amazon added accurate & reliable? If it's of 
>> very poor standard, then deleting the tag would make OSM better & more 
>> reliable.
>> 
>> On 17/08/2020 05:33, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
>> > Was there a previous discussion about this that I can catch up on? 
>> > Driveways seem like access=private is appropriate across the board, not 
>> > just when there is explicit signage. If you drive onto someone's house's 
>> > driveway without permission, you are trespassing on their property.
>> > 
>> > --
>> > Skyler
>> > 
>> > ___
>> > Talk-us mailing list
>> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>> > 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>> 
> 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Alex Weech]

> I don't map in USA, but when I map driveways in Ireland, I add 
> `access=private`.

I'm always in favor of tags meaning the same thing everywhere, so maybe we need 
to come up with a new access or way to map houses that don't allow unannounced 
visitors. Maybe something like access=no_trespassing? Or maybe the culture is 
different where you are. Does everyone put up signs saying all unannounced 
visitors will be shot at or have the police called on them, or is it just 
culturally assumed? Here it's maybe 5-10% that are unfriendly to visitors, so 
the distinction is worth mapping. Or maybe just having an unannounced visitor 
is an American thing.

- Alex (aweech)

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020, at 2:54 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> I don't map in USA, but when I map driveways in Ireland, I add 
> `access=private`. So I agree they should be there.
> 
> However, is the data that Amazon added accurate & reliable? If it's of 
> very poor standard, then deleting the tag would make OSM better & more 
> reliable.
> 
> On 17/08/2020 05:33, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> > Was there a previous discussion about this that I can catch up on? 
> > Driveways seem like access=private is appropriate across the board, not 
> > just when there is explicit signage. If you drive onto someone's house's 
> > driveway without permission, you are trespassing on their property.
> > 
> > --
> > Skyler
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> > 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Tod Fitch]

Don’t recall if it was on talk-us or tagging, but yes there was a recent 
discussion on this.

If I recall correctly it seemed access=destination was preferred if you were 
going to tag an access value.

But since a significant number of driveways (nearly all?) are not physically 
through roads there is little danger of a router directing you on it unless 
your destination is on the driveway, so tagging an access=* really isn’t needed 
most of the time.

—Tod

> On Aug 16, 2020, at 8:33 PM, Skyler Hawthorne  wrote:
> 
> Was there a previous discussion about this that I can catch up on? Driveways 
> seem like access=private is appropriate across the board, not just when there 
> is explicit signage. If you drive onto someone's house's driveway without 
> permission, you are trespassing on their property.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Rory McCann]

I don't map in USA, but when I map driveways in Ireland, I add 
`access=private`. So I agree they should be there.


However, is the data that Amazon added accurate & reliable? If it's of 
very poor standard, then deleting the tag would make OSM better & more 
reliable.


On 17/08/2020 05:33, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
Was there a previous discussion about this that I can catch up on? 
Driveways seem like access=private is appropriate across the board, not 
just when there is explicit signage. If you drive onto someone's house's 
driveway without permission, you are trespassing on their property.


--
Skyler

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



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