I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that if there's reasonable doubt, we shouldn't map anonymous info without a local survey or some other proof.
2017-10-05 11:10 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>: > Does a tourist information sign indicates any access rights ? Is the > fact that a place is for rent indicates any access rights to the > driveway ? It can still be access=customers (or visitors, but we > don't have that). > > m. > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:58 AM, joost schouppe > <joost.schou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jakka mapped it as private, based on an anonymous note. However, we now > have > > clear indications this is wrong. We can't use Streetview to define this > as > > access=yes, but I believe we can use this to overrule an anonymous > source. > > So I have removed the tag and left a fixme and a comment at the note. I > > would suggest we only change this based on a survey or a decent reply > from > > the local government. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-be mailing list > > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > -- Joost Schouppe OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
