On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Colin Smale <[email protected]> wrote: > Forgive me, you used the phrase "publicly owned" and I jumped to the > conclusion you were talking about land owned by {local,central} governments, > and there is plenty of that, much of which is off-limits to the general > public.
Sorry about that. It's a confusing issue because, as you yourself pointed out, public rights of way might be technically "owned" by non-government entities, and land technically "owned" by government entities might not be a public right of way. (And in other cases there might not even be a technical "owner".) According to the Wikipedia article [[state ownership]], "There is a distinction to be made between state ownership and public property. The former may refer to assets operated by a specific organization of the state used exclusively by their operators or that organization, such as a research laboratory, while public property refers to assets and resources that are available to the entire public for use, such as a public park (see public space)." I was referring to what that Wikipedia article refers to as "public property", not "state ownership". And note that public property, such as a public park, is not open to any type of use whatsoever. The use public property is often restricted by law. "Public property" does not mean "anything goes". In terms of ways, that would be things like "no bicycles", "buses only", or "no horses". That is very different from the restrictions on a military base, or in a parking lot for court staff only. > I still have problems making sense of your assertion that > access=private doesn't make much sense on land that is publicly owned. If land is marked access=private, there should be a meaningful answer to the question "Who do I contact to get permission?" And I don't consider "lobby the government to change the law" to be a meaningful answer. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
