Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > May 26, 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de: >> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> 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&diff=1995183&oldid=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 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
