On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Alex Mauer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 04/12/2010 12:48 PM, Anthony wrote: > > Yeah, that's what I was quoting above. However, with drive-thrus (at > least > > here in Florida), the public does not have any right of access > whatsoever. > > Really? So you can’t actually use a drive-thru in Florida? That seems > kind of silly. Why would anyone bother building one if no one is > allowed to use it? > There is a difference (here, in Florida, I won't speak for other locations) between having a right of access and having an implied permission of access. A right of access cannot be taken away except by the government. Permission to use a drive-through can be taken away by the property owner - the public does not have a right of access. Compare access=yes to access=permissive. "The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access, i.e. it's a right of way." vs. "The owner gives general permission for access." Now, note that access=destination uses the term "the public has a right of access [in certain circumstances]", not "the owner gives general permission for access [in certain circumstances]". Drive-thrus are an instance of the latter, not the former.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
