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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 29, 2020, 08:29 by a...@thaw.de:

>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> I expect a "keep out" sign would probably override implicit permission?
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Mateusz changed the wiki to say different. Clearly, consensus does not 
> currently exist to support that change.
>
Wiki was changed again.

Rolled back on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=history

Described as controversial/unclear on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:access%3Dprivate=history

Thanks to Arne Johannessen for making an edit to better reflect what was 
discussed.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:03 AM Adam Franco  wrote:
> Adjacent to Kevin's home state of New York, here in Vermont we have a 
> slightly more open private-land access laws. While property owners may post 
> no-trespassing signs (access=private) (statute), the default when unsigned is 
> access=permissive for non-motorized crossing of land. To encourage public 
> access of private land the state limits the owner's liability unless the 
> damage or injury is the result of the willful or wanton misconduct of the 
> owner.

New York offers the same indemnification -- non-paying, uninvited
visitors cannot recover from the landowner except in the case of
willful or malicious failure to guard against or warn of dangers. Use
of a public-access easement, or wandering onto unposted land, does not
constitute an invitation. But that's a general protection whether you
post or not - you simply aren't responsible for the safety of
uninvited guests if you don't do anything malicious. (You cant set
traps, or knowingly steer them into danger, but you have no
responsibility to guard them against hazards that exist for other
reasons.)

While non-motorized access to unposted land is not a legal default,
New York offers "ASK PERMISSION SEE LANDOWNER" stickers free of charge
to go on posters indicating that access may be granted to strangers
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/askperm.pdf, and similarly
offers a standard-form permission card that landowners may use:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/ask.pdf. Many landowners use
them; they consider law-abiding visitors to be their eyes and ears for
problems with the property. Simple NO TRESPASSING posters serve only
to exclude the people you _want_ to visit, and are no deterrent to
poachers or vandals!

The state will also, in some cases, purchase access easements, usually
offering a corresponding decrease in the assessed value of the land
and hence a decrease in the property taxes. (I'm not all that versed
in those matters. My brother is more up on it than I am. He has
foregone some of his development rights because undeveloped forest
land is taxed at a lower rate; the Boy Scouts lease a trail easement
across his back acreage in the summer; and there's a hunting club that
leases the hunting and fishing rights, so he gets a little bit of
compensation; but he hasn't granted rights to the public at large. I
live in town and don't deal with that sort of thing except as a
hiker.) I've done a fair amount of travel across easements on land
belonging to large timber concerns such as International Paper.

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:06 PM Colin Smale  wrote:
> In the UK it is apparently not required to demonstrate actual damage:
> https://www.inbrief.co.uk/land-law/trespass/
>
> You might like to peruse this document, which is an explainer for members of 
> parliament:
> https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05116/SN05116.pdf

From the latter page: "Where the trespass is trivial, damages may be
nominal and an injunction refused. Where a trespass concerns some use
of the land without causing damage, the damages will be measured in
relation to the value of the defendant’s use." A plaintiff who sues
someone who is unknowingly encroaching and causing no actual damage is
likely to wind up with peppercorn damages. What is the value, after
all, of walking along someone's hedgerow to get to the next field
over?

> If any actual damage is done however, then the damage itself may constitute a 
> criminal offence ("Criminal Damage").
>
> As trespass is a civil tort the police won't turn out to help. You (the 
> landowner) will have to take the trespasser to court, which is an inalienable 
> right. The question is then, how will the magistrate think? What makes a 
> valid claim, and what is a valid defence? As it is not a criminal case, I am 
> not sure if mens rea comes into it. But the "intent" will definitely 
> influence the court. As they say, ignorance [of the law] is no excuse; so 
> pleading that you did not realise it was private property or that you were 
> not allowed to be there will not help, possibly unless you claim that you has 
> misread the boundary on a map, for example.

That is ignorance of the facts, rather than of the law. Ignorance of
law is no defence - you can't offer up, "I didn't know that
trespassing is illegal." Ignorance of fact is, "I didn't know that I'd
left public land." It's an affirmative defence; the burden of proof is
on the defendant to offer evidence of what led to the incorrect
assessment of the facts - for example, the misread boundary that you
mention.

Particularly in the areas that Adam and I discuss, there is so much
public land with complex boundaries that if an owner doesn't post,
it's easy to make the case that you unknowingly crossed the boundary
between public and private domains. The matter is compounded by the
fact that the vegetation and topography of our woods present certain,
ahem, navigational challenges. The 

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-29 15:46, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:32 AM Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
>> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every bit 
>> of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner has 
>> an absolute right to determine who has right of access, except for certain 
>> cases, like a Public Footpath or designated open access land that falls 
>> under the "right to roam" legislation. A person's house and driveway does 
>> not fall under these exceptions, so there is no right of access, except with 
>> the landowner's permission. So here we have "access=private". That does not 
>> mean you cannot knock on the door, or deliver a parcel however; whether by 
>> so doing you are committing civil trespass is not a priori clear - it 
>> depends on the circumstances; modelling all these circumstances in OSM is an 
>> enormous challenge that I don't think we are looking to solve here.
>> 
>> Despite private ownership, the exceptions I mentioned (public highway, open 
>> access) are "access=public" AKA "access=yes". It is illegal to prevent 
>> access.
>> 
>> Of course there are rules and limitations in all cases as to the type of 
>> access: public footpaths are deemed to be ±1m wide and access is only 
>> granted to pedestrians, not to motor vehicles for example.
>> 
>> I believe that there is a defence to trespass on the grounds of "custom"
>> which IMHO would cover deliveries to your door, or someone needing
>> emergency help, or door-to-door salesmen (all in the absence of explicit
>> signing to the contrary of course).
> 
> _Mens rea_, at least in most of the US, is an element of criminal
> trespass, and the liability for the civil tort of trespass is limited
> to actual damages in most cases. Since most of the key definitions in
> this part of the Common Law were established before our legal systems
> diverged, I imagine that is so in the UK as well. If you haven't
> damaged property by your unauthorized presence, and you haven't been
> told that land is private or invaded the curtilage of a dwelling, the
> owner has no cause of action. In effect, all they can do is to demand
> that you leave; the cause of action doesn't arise until you fail to
> comply.

In the UK it is apparently not required to demonstrate actual damage: 
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/land-law/trespass/ 

You might like to peruse this document, which is an explainer for
members of parliament: 
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05116/SN05116.pdf


If any actual damage is done however, then the damage itself may
constitute a criminal offence ("Criminal Damage"). 

As trespass is a civil tort the police won't turn out to help. You (the
landowner) will have to take the trespasser to court, which is an
inalienable right. The question is then, how will the magistrate think?
What makes a valid claim, and what is a valid defence? As it is not a
criminal case, I am not sure if mens rea comes into it. But the "intent"
will definitely influence the court. As they say, ignorance [of the law]
is no excuse; so pleading that you did not realise it was private
property or that you were not allowed to be there will not help,
possibly unless you claim that you has misread the boundary on a map,
for example. Walking across what is clearly someone's garden and then
claiming you thought it was open-access land is not going to get you
anywhere, I suspect.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Adam Franco]

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:48 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> We have no 'right to roam' here other than the fact that you haven't
> been trespassing unless you knew or should have known that your
> presence was unlawful, and are legally liable only for damage you
> cause.

Adjacent to Kevin's home state of New York, here in Vermont we have a
slightly more open private-land access laws. While property owners may post

no-trespassing signs (access=private) (statute
), the
default when unsigned is access=permissive for non-motorized crossing of
land. To encourage public access of private land the state limits the
owner's liability unless the damage or injury is the result of the willful
or wanton misconduct of the owner
.

Going back to driveways and private roads, most Vermont Towns are loath to
take on the additional maintenance burden of access roads to just a few
houses and so a large number of small roads and shared driveways are signed
"Private" or "PVT" on the street sign. (Example of PVT
) This indicates
that maintenance of the road
 is the
responsibility of the private land-owners and the Town is not responsible
for it. Residents on private roads that serve 3 or more houses may also
petition their Town to take on maintenance and make it a public road. The
"Private" designation in this fashion does not imply access restrictions,
only maintenance responsibilities. Unfortunately, some mappers in my area
have been blanket-tagging all of these as access=private which I believe to
be a mistake. The TIGER import also tagged all of these as access=private.
Many people in rural areas like their privacy and going up a road serving
several houses without going to one of those houses may prompt inquiry, but
it is is not prohibited until you are told to leave by sign, verbal, or
other clear indication. I'm fine with tagging these access=destination as
that seems to fit better than access=private.

Privately owned roads where owners clearly don't want public access are
often gated and/or be posted with "Private, no trespassing" signs and these
are what I think should be tagged access=private. If all driveways/private
roads are tagged with access=private, then that distinction becomes
impossible to disambiguate.


On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:48 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:32 AM Colin Smale  wrote:
> > In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every
> bit of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner
> has an absolute right to determine who has right of access, except for
> certain cases, like a Public Footpath or designated open access land that
> falls under the "right to roam" legislation. A person's house and driveway
> does not fall under these exceptions, so there is no right of access,
> except with the landowner's permission. So here we have "access=private".
> That does not mean you cannot knock on the door, or deliver a parcel
> however; whether by so doing you are committing civil trespass is not a
> priori clear - it depends on the circumstances; modelling all these
> circumstances in OSM is an enormous challenge that I don't think we are
> looking to solve here.
> >
> > Despite private ownership, the exceptions I mentioned (public highway,
> open access) are "access=public" AKA "access=yes". It is illegal to prevent
> access.
> >
> > Of course there are rules and limitations in all cases as to the type of
> access: public footpaths are deemed to be ±1m wide and access is only
> granted to pedestrians, not to motor vehicles for example.
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that there is a defence to trespass on the grounds of "custom"
> > which IMHO would cover deliveries to your door, or someone needing
> > emergency help, or door-to-door salesmen (all in the absence of explicit
> > signing to the contrary of course).
>
>
> _Mens rea_, at least in most of the US, is an element of criminal
> trespass, and the liability for the civil tort of trespass is limited
> to actual damages in most cases. Since most of the key definitions in
> this part of the Common Law were established before our legal systems
> diverged, I imagine that is so in the UK as well. If you haven't
> damaged property by your unauthorized presence, and you haven't been
> told that land is private or invaded the curtilage of a dwelling, the
> owner has no cause of action. In effect, all they can do is to demand
> that you leave; the cause of action doesn't arise until you fail to
> comply.
>
> Being told that the land is private can be accomplished with signage,
> which is why 'POSTED' and 'PRIVATE ROAD' signs are ubiquitous in the
> US.  (And, of 

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-29 14:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>> On 29. May 2020, at 12:57, Colin Smale  wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry, I think I had a different photo in mind. It's pretty clear that the 
>> footway is associated with the road, so if you have access to the road, you 
>> can walk on that footway.
> 
> I cannot see this. To me there is a sequence road, lawn, footway, identical 
> lawn, house, and no indication where a potential boundary between private and 
> public would be located. I'm pretty sure the building is private though ;-)
> 
>> But between the footway and the house you have to assume it is associated 
>> with the house,
> 
> do you? Because this is the "typical" situation, or are there more hints?

We only have the photo to go on. It is my assumption that the footway
follows the road, past multiple properties, and that it is intended for
pedestrians to pass along parallel with the road. It's only an
assumption, but it sounds like the most likely scenario to me. Do you
think it would be OK for you to walk over the grass towards the house
without good reason like an intention to ring the bell? If it were my
garden you had better watch out. 

> You have to assume you have no right to be anywhere, unless you have reason 
> to believe you are allowed. That's the law (in England and NL at least). 
> that's a sad law, in Germany it's the opposite: you may assume you can be 
> everywhere unless you have reason to believe it is forbidden.

Are you referring to Jedermannsrecht? From wikipedia I get the
impression that that applies to open countryside and would correspond to
"open access areas" in England. Do you have reason to believe somebody's
front garden is forbidden? To me that's a no-brainer. 

Maybe this is a symptom of a cultural difference. To a Brit like me, "an
Englishman's home is his castle" is how we are brought up.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:32 AM Colin Smale  wrote:
> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every bit 
> of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner has 
> an absolute right to determine who has right of access, except for certain 
> cases, like a Public Footpath or designated open access land that falls under 
> the "right to roam" legislation. A person's house and driveway does not fall 
> under these exceptions, so there is no right of access, except with the 
> landowner's permission. So here we have "access=private". That does not mean 
> you cannot knock on the door, or deliver a parcel however; whether by so 
> doing you are committing civil trespass is not a priori clear - it depends on 
> the circumstances; modelling all these circumstances in OSM is an enormous 
> challenge that I don't think we are looking to solve here.
>
> Despite private ownership, the exceptions I mentioned (public highway, open 
> access) are "access=public" AKA "access=yes". It is illegal to prevent access.
>
> Of course there are rules and limitations in all cases as to the type of 
> access: public footpaths are deemed to be ±1m wide and access is only granted 
> to pedestrians, not to motor vehicles for example.
>
>
>
> I believe that there is a defence to trespass on the grounds of "custom"
> which IMHO would cover deliveries to your door, or someone needing
> emergency help, or door-to-door salesmen (all in the absence of explicit
> signing to the contrary of course).


_Mens rea_, at least in most of the US, is an element of criminal
trespass, and the liability for the civil tort of trespass is limited
to actual damages in most cases. Since most of the key definitions in
this part of the Common Law were established before our legal systems
diverged, I imagine that is so in the UK as well. If you haven't
damaged property by your unauthorized presence, and you haven't been
told that land is private or invaded the curtilage of a dwelling, the
owner has no cause of action. In effect, all they can do is to demand
that you leave; the cause of action doesn't arise until you fail to
comply.

Being told that the land is private can be accomplished with signage,
which is why 'POSTED' and 'PRIVATE ROAD' signs are ubiquitous in the
US.  (And, of course, Louisiana law is different!)

We have no 'right to roam' here other than the fact that you haven't
been trespassing unless you knew or should have known that your
presence was unlawful, and are legally liable only for damage you
cause. (My state also negotiates public access easements with many of
the timber companies, who are willing to tolerate the presence of
hikers in order to get a small tax break.)

This gives rise to a number of paths whose legal status is unclear -
which means that until asked to leave, you're potentially liable only
for damage that you cause. Building fires or camping both tend to be
considered damaging activities intrinsically (although I'm unaware of
any coherent body of law on the matter), and someone carrying a
firearm or a fishing pole can be presumed to be poaching, but simply
walking on a private trail that isn't obviously in the curtilage of a
dwelling, gated, nor signed, is pretty much in the category of
"unlawful, but the law is unenforceable."

If a formal trail winds up falling into that circumstance, and a new
landowner objects, the trail _may_ be relocated, but it's commoner to
negotiate a settlement involving an easement for the trail. In the US,
as in the UK, there are also trails that use nearly-abandoned
rights-of-way from roads that predate the automobile. Until and unless
the landowner successfully pursues an abandonment proceeding in court,
the rights-of-way remain open. For this reason, boundary-line trails
like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/456137516 may be mismapped if
they're shown as crossing the property line, or the property line may
be mismapped, but it's equally likely simply that the property line is
indefinite and the trespass, if there is one, is tolerated. It's
surely not a reason to abstain from walking a marked path for fear of
trespassing.

The root cultural assumption has changed in my time.  I can recall a
time when few farmers cared about walkers in their fields, as long as
you kept to the field edges or tracks so as not to trample crops,
refrained from disturbing the livestock, and left the gates as you
found them. Few farmers troubled to post. Now there are posters
everywhere, and a general sentiment that 'everything is forbidden
unless explicitly allowed.' Eventually, I expect that the codified law
will come to follow the new belief, so I may be a member of the last
US generation that remembers a customary freedom to roam.

In my state, all navigable waterways belong to the state, and the
definition of 'navigable' arose at a time when trading by canoe was
common, so you pretty much have the right to paddle across anyone's
land, but not to land your 

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

[Arne Johannessen]

Colin Smale  wrote:
> On 2020-05-29 13:27, Paul Allen wrote:
>> 
>> I feel that access=permissive is not entirely useful for driveways.  How
>> do you get permission?  Is it legally acceptable to walk along the driveway
>> to the house to ask permission to walk along the driveway to the house in
>> order to talk to the householder about something?  It all gets a bit
>> recursive.

I think you may misunderstand the meaning of access=permissive. This tag is 
used in cases where the owner of private property allows everyone to access it, 
so asking for permission would be pointless.

(The owner may make individual exceptions or change their mind about granting 
access to everybody at any time.)


> Indeed, access=permissive makes no sense for a private driveway.


JFTR, there are countries (e. g. Norway) which by law have a default value of 
access=permissive for private driveways.


-- 
Arne Johannessen



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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. May 2020, at 12:57, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I think I had a different photo in mind. It's pretty clear that the 
> footway is associated with the road, so if you have access to the road, you 
> can walk on that footway.



I cannot see this. To me there is a sequence road, lawn, footway, identical 
lawn, house, and no indication where a potential boundary between private and 
public would be located. I’m pretty sure the building is private though ;-)


> But between the footway and the house you have to assume it is associated 
> with the house,


do you? Because this is the “typical” situation, or are there more hints?


> You have to assume you have no right to be anywhere, unless you have reason 
> to believe you are allowed. That's the law (in England and NL at least).


that’s a sad law, in Germany it’s the opposite: you may assume you can be 
everywhere unless you have reason to believe it is forbidden.

Cheers Martin 



___
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:
>> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> (9)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg
>>> 
>>> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting 
>>> the use of the access=private tag here.
> 
> [...] It's access=private.

Obviously, I disagree.


> You have to assume you have no right to be anywhere, unless you have reason 
> to believe you are allowed. That's the law (in England and NL at least). But 
> that doesn't mean you can never enter, just that you need a "qualifying 
> reason" to do so.

Hmm, I think I may finally start to see your point.

Let me ask you this though: Do you see a clear distinction in terms of access 
rights between
(a) areas anyone is allowed to visit without pre-clearance based on a 
"qualifying reason", and
(b) areas off-limits to everyone unless pre-clearance is obtained?

If so, what should the tagging look like, in your opinion?

An example for (a) might be an English driveway looking like example (9) above.
An example for (b) might be the Sellafield nuclear site.


-- 
Arne Johannessen



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

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-29 13:27, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 11:32, Colin Smale  wrote:

> [lengthy snip] 
> 
>> You refer to a specific case - "when visiting the house". It would be 
>> unlawful if you were just out for a stroll, without the intention of 
>> visiting the house. Access=permissive would imply that it would be OK to 
>> walk up the driveway to have a look around the garden, and that is not the 
>> case.
> I feel that access=permissive is not entirely useful for driveways.  How 
> do you get permission?  Is it legally acceptable to walk along the driveway 
> to the house to ask permission to walk along the driveway to the house in 
> order to talk to the householder about something?  It all gets a bit 
> recursive.

Indeed, access=permissive makes no sense for a private driveway.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 11:32, Colin Smale  wrote:

Since we're getting down to splitting hairs here, I'll get out my
microtome. :)

>
> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every
> bit of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner
> has an absolute right to determine who has right of access, except for
> certain cases, like a Public Footpath or designated open access land that
> falls under the "right to roam" legislation.
>

This is, AFAIK, correct.

A person's house and driveway does not fall under these exceptions,
>

Actually, each local authority maintains a definitive map of public
footpaths, bridleways, BOATs, etc.  And when they say definitive, they
mean definitive.  If, by mistake, they draw a footpath in the wrong place
such that it is incorrectly shown going along your drive and through your
house then legally that IS the right of way.  If the definitive map is
wrong,
it is definitively and legally right.  The public has the legal right to
follow
the path shown in the definitive map even if it is obviously wrong and they
can see the actual path nearby.

so there is no right of access, except with the landowner's permission.
>

Unless the definitive map shows a "wrong of way" going along your drive
and through your house.  Then the landowner cannot legally prevent
access.

[lengthy snip]

> You refer to a specific case - "when visiting the house". It would be
> unlawful if you were just out for a stroll, without the intention of
> visiting the house. Access=permissive would imply that it would be OK to
> walk up the driveway to have a look around the garden, and that is not the
> case.
>

I feel that access=permissive is not entirely useful for driveways.  How
do you get permission?  Is it legally acceptable to walk along the driveway
to the house to ask permission to walk along the driveway to the house in
order to talk to the householder about something?  It all gets a bit
recursive.

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

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-29 12:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale 
> : 
> 
> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote: 
> 
> Here's an example for such a situation:
> (9)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg
> 
> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting 
> the use of the access=private tag here. 
> You are not allowed to enter it without a valid reason. That's private. Just 
> because the gate is open does not give you the right to enter.

Which gate? I do not see any gate, nor fence, nor does it seem clear
where the private property begins. (No signs either). 

Sorry, I think I had a different photo in mind. It's pretty clear that
the footway is associated with the road, so if you have access to the
road, you can walk on that footway. But between the footway and the
house you have to assume it is associated with the house, and you have
no right to walk on the grass or walk on the driveway, although there
are legitimate reasons to do so. Depending on the jurisdiction, the
landowner may be able to bring a case against you. It's access=private.
You have to assume you have no right to be anywhere, unless you have
reason to believe you are allowed. That's the law (in England and NL at
least). But that doesn't mean you can never enter, just that you need a
"qualifying reason" to do so.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale :

> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>
> Here's an example for such a situation:
> (9)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg
>
> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing
> supporting the use of the access=private tag here.
>
> You are not allowed to enter it without a valid reason. That's private.
> Just because the gate is open does not give you the right to enter.
>
>


Which gate? I do not see any gate, nor fence, nor does it seem clear where
the private property begins. (No signs either).

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

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:

> Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your
>> letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass
>> over your land to fulfil his legal duty.
> 
> Sure. But access=private has nothing to do with private ownership. See below.

They are different, but related. 

In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every
bit of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The
owner has an absolute right to determine who has right of access, except
for certain cases, like a Public Footpath or designated open access land
that falls under the "right to roam" legislation. A person's house and
driveway does not fall under these exceptions, so there is no right of
access, except with the landowner's permission. So here we have
"access=private". That does not mean you cannot knock on the door, or
deliver a parcel however; whether by so doing you are committing civil
trespass is not a priori clear - it depends on the circumstances;
modelling all these circumstances in OSM is an enormous challenge that I
don't think we are looking to solve here. 

Despite private ownership, the exceptions I mentioned (public highway,
open access) are "access=public" AKA "access=yes". It is illegal to
prevent access. 

Of course there are rules and limitations in all cases as to the type of
access: public footpaths are deemed to be ±1m wide and access is only
granted to pedestrians, not to motor vehicles for example. 

> I believe that there is a defence to trespass on the grounds of "custom"
> which IMHO would cover deliveries to your door, or someone needing
> emergency help, or door-to-door salesmen (all in the absence of explicit
> signing to the contrary of course). 
> 
> Well, explicit signing like "keep out" is what's currently being discussed.
> 
> Or places that may be unsigned, but still make it clear that by entering 
> without permission, you break the law and may have to answer for it. Think of 
> a closed gate or something like that; the details of what's lawful and what 
> isn't vary by jurisdiction.
> 
> That's what access=private is being used for.

Of course definitions can vary by jurisdiction. In UK/NL (countries that
I happen to know well), even if the gate is open your presence on the
land may be unlawful, depending on your intent (but that doesn't mean
you can be prosecuted for anything). But a "keep out" sign does not
override legal right of access. The sign itself may not be legally
posted. Does the sign apply to a point ("forbidden to pass this sign"),
or to an area? What is the extent of the area? I have never seen an "end
of keep out" sign. 

> On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> 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?
> I expect a "keep out" sign would probably override implicit permission?
> Agreed.
> 
> Mateusz changed the wiki to say different. Clearly, consensus does not 
> currently exist to support that change.
> 
> 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.
> Which is exactly why a driveway is access=private. Maybe a delivery
> driver doesn't have "permission" as such, but he may have a reasonable
> justification to use your driveway.
> I think you're confusing access=private with ownership=private here.
> 
> This is an example of a typical access=private driveway:
> (8)  https://4.imimg.com/data4/OR/NG/MY-11485274/ms-gate-500x500.jpg
> 
> Note the strong gate and the intercom on the right pillar, which could be 
> used to obtain permission to enter. A delivery driver would probably be 
> expected to use that intercom, even if the gate happened to be open (again, 
> the actual legality may vary by jurisdiction).
> 
> Most driveways have less imposing access restrictions in place. Many have no 
> physical barriers or signs at all. They're still private ground, but with 
> nothing to indicate restrictions to a visitor, it would not be unlawful to 
> enter the driveway when visiting the house. Therefore, such driveways are 
> _not_ access=private; perhaps they are access=destination or 
> access=permissive, but as Flo pointed out, adding these tags to driveways in 
> OSM isn't very useful.

You refer to a specific case - "when visiting the house". It would be
unlawful if you were just out for a stroll, without the intention of
visiting the house. Access=permissive would imply that it would be OK to
walk up the driveway to have a look around the garden, and that is not
the case. 

Access=destination is insufficiently specified IMHO, as 

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

[Arne Johannessen]

Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> these examples are pretty clear, but many situations are more like this:
> https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3790/10358136313_96dbe07548_b.jpg
> 
> the fence is very low and the gate is always open.

That's true. But with situations like that, even lawyers sometimes disagree 
about the meaning of the law. I'd say that's out of scope for us.


-- 
Arne Johannessen



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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. May 2020, at 08:31, Arne Johannessen  wrote:
> 
> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting 
> the use of the access=private tag here.



these examples are pretty clear, but many situations are more like this:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3790/10358136313_96dbe07548_b.jpg

the fence is very low and the gate is always open.

Cheers Martin ___
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:
> 
> [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your
> letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass
> over your land to fulfil his legal duty.

Sure. But access=private has nothing to do with private ownership. See below.


> I believe that there is a defence to trespass on the grounds of "custom"
> which IMHO would cover deliveries to your door, or someone needing
> emergency help, or door-to-door salesmen (all in the absence of explicit
> signing to the contrary of course).

Well, explicit signing like "keep out" is what's currently being discussed.

Or places that may be unsigned, but still make it clear that by entering 
without permission, you break the law and may have to answer for it. Think of a 
closed gate or something like that; the details of what's lawful and what isn't 
vary by jurisdiction.

That's what access=private is being used for.


> On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> I expect a "keep out" sign would probably override implicit permission?

Agreed.

Mateusz changed the wiki to say different. Clearly, consensus does not 
currently exist to support that change.


>> 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.
> 
> Which is exactly why a driveway is access=private. Maybe a delivery
> driver doesn't have "permission" as such, but he may have a reasonable
> justification to use your driveway.

I think you're confusing access=private with ownership=private here.

This is an example of a typical access=private driveway:
(8)  https://4.imimg.com/data4/OR/NG/MY-11485274/ms-gate-500x500.jpg

Note the strong gate and the intercom on the right pillar, which could be used 
to obtain permission to enter. A delivery driver would probably be expected to 
use that intercom, even if the gate happened to be open (again, the actual 
legality may vary by jurisdiction).

Most driveways have less imposing access restrictions in place. Many have no 
physical barriers or signs at all. They're still private ground, but with 
nothing to indicate restrictions to a visitor, it would not be unlawful to 
enter the driveway when visiting the house. Therefore, such driveways are _not_ 
access=private; perhaps they are access=destination or access=permissive, but 
as Flo pointed out, adding these tags to driveways in OSM isn't very useful.

Here's an example for such a situation:
(9)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg

I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting the 
use of the access=private tag here.


-- 
Arne Johannessen



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

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

[Colin Smale]

Hi Arne, 

On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote:

> 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).

The UK is a common-law system, so there is a lot of stuff that is not
explicitly covered by statutes, just by case history through the years
full of concepts like "reasonableness." 

Well, the postal service has an obligation to deliver to every address,
and has standards for the letter box and its accessibility. As a
householder, if you want to receive letters, you need to have a
compliant letterbox. So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your
letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass
over your land to fulfil his legal duty. Parcels are different as they
are not part of the Universal Service Obligations. 

I believe that there is a defence to trespass on the grounds of "custom"
which IMHO would cover deliveries to your door, or someone needing
emergency help, or door-to-door salesmen (all in the absence of explicit
signing to the contrary of course). 

Google told me that the United States Postal Service does not deliver on
private land, which would explain why they have their mailboxes at the
side of the road and not at their front door. 

>> I disagree that permission needs to be explicit for access=private.
> 
> Okay. Can you explain, specifically, how "implicit" permissions are supposed 
> to work?

With hindsight, what I called "implicit permission" might better be
termed "reasonable excuse" 

> 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?

I expect a "keep out" sign would probably override implicit permission? 

Implicit permission would be covered by "custom" and "reasonableness" -
if you actually tried to sue a delivery driver for trespass the case
would be thrown out of court, unless you had some kind of sign, barrier
etc showing that you forbid what in most cases is a normal activity. 

> 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.

Which is exactly why a driveway is access=private. Maybe a delivery
driver doesn't have "permission" as such, but he may have a reasonable
justification to use your driveway.___
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] 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] 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] 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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 26, 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de:

> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:
>
>> May 25, 2020, 02:45 by a...@thaw.de:
>>
>>>
>>> [access=private driveways implicitly permitting delivieries to destination?]
>>>
>>> Not all deliveries are actively requested, and the delivery person can't 
>>> know if you requested it or not.
>>>
>>
>> Good point. 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? "access=destination" means "no transit traffic, no other restrictions".
What changes nothing for a typical driveway.


>> [...]
>>
>>> FWIW, I'm less happy with the current state of the access=private page. But 
>>> I'm not sure if consensus exists to clarify it.
>>>
>> What is wrong and how you want to change it?
>>
>
> It does not specifiy precisely what the tag value =private means. 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

> I think the =private wiki page could be improved by clarifying that =private 
> really does require _explicit_ prior permission. The "Facilities" section 
> already mentions "a closed group of users", which implies just that, but 
> evidently this isn't very clear.
>
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.

> Additionally, the language generally could use a bit of cleanup, the relation 
> to alternatives like =destination should be mentioned
>
destination mentioned

> (I might take a swing at this if I find the time.)
>
Yeah, fully resolving this (not just parts that I quoted) will take plenty of 
time.

___
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 25, 2020, 02:45 by a...@thaw.de:
>> 
>> [access=private driveways implicitly permitting delivieries to destination?]
>> 
>> Not all deliveries are actively requested, and the delivery person can't 
>> know if you requested it or not.
> 
> Good point. 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.


> [...]
> 
>> FWIW, I'm less happy with the current state of the access=private page. But 
>> I'm not sure if consensus exists to clarify it.
> What is wrong and how you want to change it?

It does not specifiy precisely what the tag value =private means. 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).


To stick with driveways, consider yesterday's posts by Colin Smale and Florian 
Lohoff on this topic on OSM-talk. [1][2] It seems to me that to a degree, both 
points of view can be backed up by the current text on the access=private wiki 
page. [3] That suggests the wiki page doesn't describe the tag in a 
particularly useful way.

I think the earlier example of a nuclear power plant was a useful one. We 
clearly need a tag value that means: Absolutely no access unless by explicit 
prior permission. Currently, =private seems to fill that need. That would mean 
the definition of =private cannot include any kind of "implicit" permissions. 
Those would need another tag value. Implicit permissions should probably be 
treated by routers similarly to =destination, so perhaps =destination (or 
=permissive) could simply be used in such cases?

A side-effect of requiring explicit permissions for =private is that =no and 
=private are almost exact synonyms. (The =private wiki page already points this 
out.) Therefore, an alternative might be to give the meaning "explicit prior 
permission required" to =no, while allowing implicit permissions for =private. 
This would seem like a major change though, and I'm not sure I'd agree with it.


I think the =private wiki page could be improved by clarifying that =private 
really does require _explicit_ prior permission. The "Facilities" section 
already mentions "a closed group of users", which implies just that, but 
evidently this isn't very clear.

Additionally, the language generally could use a bit of cleanup, the relation 
to alternatives like =destination should be mentioned, and the picture should 
be like a "no trespassing" sign (ideally something that works for most 
jurisdictions).

(I might take a swing at this if I find the time.)


[1] <549c82c01046d2acd1ad8d41ca408...@xs4all.nl>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-May/084774.html
[2] <20200525181730.6rbnfqyygw3yt...@pax.zz.de>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-May/084791.html
[3] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:access%3Dprivate=1986562

-- 
Arne Johannessen



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