Re: [Tagging] Default access for service=driveway?
> > 1. Should a routing engine automatically assume that something tagged a > "driveway" is not suitable for through traffic? For motor vehicles through traffic seems inappropriate by default, but for pedestrians I would think it is generally ok. Bicycles are somewhere between. The case Frederik originally asked about is a "private residential property" where a corner-cutting service=driveway may be used to tag a driveway that is conventionally part of the "private sphere" of that residence. The challenge is that the same service=driveway tagging is also used by driveways to commercial, government, and other types of property that are in the "public sphere" by convention have fewer conventional restrictions against pedestrian access. My state (Vermont, USA) has open-access laws that generally allow non-motorized travel over un-posted land. That said, in my small town and rural area the convention is *usually* to avoid walking & biking on most driveways of private residences, especially when those driveways go right next to a house. Driveways of businesses, churches, apartment complexes, and similar entities are regularly used as shortcuts by pedestrians. Driveways to university buildings, government buildings, parks, and museums are even more likely to be used by pedestrians and bicycles as either shortcuts or normal travel routes. I've been trying to think of defaults that would still allow access across the "public sphere" driveways I mentioned above and not encourage private residential driveway access, but so far haven't hit on a workable methodology. Best, Adam On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 6:04 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Di., 22. Dez. 2020 um 10:16 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < > frede...@remote.org>: > >> The private residential property has two driveways (highway=service, >> service=driveway) entering it from different sides, thereby enabling >> people to save a few metres by walking through, rather than around, the >> property. >> >> These driveways do not have an access=private (or access=destination) >> tag or anything like that. >> >> Questions: >> >> 1. Should a routing engine automatically assume that something tagged a >> "driveway" is not suitable for through traffic? >> > > > I am unsure about this. If we encourage this interpretation we will have > to review about 5.5 million driveways (which currently do not have an > access tag) [1] . While I would assume that a driveway is typically private > access (or destination), the tag isn't always used in this way, > particularly in the country side and with long driveways. The wiki > esplicitly states: "There is no defined default access tag for driveways, > so data consumers have to guess if you do not add an access tag." > > > >> >> 2. If you map such driveways, would you add access=private (or >> access=destination) in OSM... >> >> 2a. ... even if there is no specific signage locally? >> > > > if it is legally (or physically, e.g. gate) the situation, yes > > > 2b. ... if there is a sign that says "access to houses X,Y,Z" without >> saying that other access is forbidden? >> > > > it depends on the specific situation, in tendency yes > > > > >> 2c. ... if there is a sign that says "private driveway"? >> >> >> > > depends again on the situation (there may be private driveways which can > be used, I would look for a "no access" sign or similar, in absence of such > signage it is not always clear. for example some such signs are put because > the owner doesn't want other vehicles to be parked, or to reject > responsibilities, but you can walk through) > > > Cheers, > Martin > > > [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=driveway#combinations > > ___ > 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] Default access for service=driveway?
På Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:14:39 +0100 Frederik Ramm skrev: >Hi, > >1. Should a routing engine automatically assume that something tagged a >"driveway" is not suitable for through traffic? We must have millions of intersections between driveways and cycle paths and sidewalks along roads. Certainly it is legitimate to route from e.g. a bicycle path through the beginning of the driveways to the main road. That is way to cross the road. >2. If you map such driveways, would you add access=private (or >access=destination) in OSM... > >2a. ... even if there is no specific signage locally? >2b. ... if there is a sign that says "access to houses X,Y,Z" without >saying that other access is forbidden? >2c. ... if there is a sign that says "private driveway"? > >Bye >Frederik > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Default access for service=driveway?
Am Di., 22. Dez. 2020 um 10:16 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < frede...@remote.org>: > The private residential property has two driveways (highway=service, > service=driveway) entering it from different sides, thereby enabling > people to save a few metres by walking through, rather than around, the > property. > > These driveways do not have an access=private (or access=destination) > tag or anything like that. > > Questions: > > 1. Should a routing engine automatically assume that something tagged a > "driveway" is not suitable for through traffic? > I am unsure about this. If we encourage this interpretation we will have to review about 5.5 million driveways (which currently do not have an access tag) [1] . While I would assume that a driveway is typically private access (or destination), the tag isn't always used in this way, particularly in the country side and with long driveways. The wiki esplicitly states: "There is no defined default access tag for driveways, so data consumers have to guess if you do not add an access tag." > > 2. If you map such driveways, would you add access=private (or > access=destination) in OSM... > > 2a. ... even if there is no specific signage locally? > if it is legally (or physically, e.g. gate) the situation, yes 2b. ... if there is a sign that says "access to houses X,Y,Z" without > saying that other access is forbidden? > it depends on the specific situation, in tendency yes > 2c. ... if there is a sign that says "private driveway"? > > > depends again on the situation (there may be private driveways which can be used, I would look for a "no access" sign or similar, in absence of such signage it is not always clear. for example some such signs are put because the owner doesn't want other vehicles to be parked, or to reject responsibilities, but you can walk through) Cheers, Martin [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=driveway#combinations ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Default access for service=driveway?
Hi, A property owner in Germany has complained that several routing engines - crucially also the one used by the local transport authority - route pedestrians trough their private residential property as a "shortcut" for accessing a bus stop. The private residential property has two driveways (highway=service, service=driveway) entering it from different sides, thereby enabling people to save a few metres by walking through, rather than around, the property. These driveways do not have an access=private (or access=destination) tag or anything like that. Questions: 1. Should a routing engine automatically assume that something tagged a "driveway" is not suitable for through traffic? 2. If you map such driveways, would you add access=private (or access=destination) in OSM... 2a. ... even if there is no specific signage locally? 2b. ... if there is a sign that says "access to houses X,Y,Z" without saying that other access is forbidden? 2c. ... if there is a sign that says "private driveway"? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
