Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I can drive into them without a key card (usually); I shouldn't be using them as a through street, but they are permitted for use if my destination is on that complex street. For OpenTripPlanner, access=destination is permitted. Should we permit routing on access=private or change the tags?
There are two issues here: 1) semantics of laws in the UK applied to the US, in terms of access=destination 2) how can a router use access=private without a side database of which users have permission to use which roads? 1) access=destination As I understand it, the access is tag is fundamentally about what a member of a public can do by right, and is tightly linked to British concepts of public rights of way. This maps relatively well to public ways in the US, and even to private ways (to which as far as I can tell the public has a right of access). In England there are apaprently streets where one only has a right of access if one is traveling someplace properly accessed via that street, and I am unaware of this concept having a broad counterpart in american law. In the US, we have a lot of private driveways (not "private ways") leading to houses or businesses, and we have a lot of parking lots that are privately owned and associated with businesses. "Everybody knows" that it's 100% ok to use those driveways if you are (properly) going to a house/business served by it, and that it's 100% ok to park in a lot that serves a business if you are going to that business. But people have no legal right to demand access; they are licensees or invitees on that property, and the owner can tell them to leave at any time. Thus, many people (including me) have repurposed access=destination to label places where "it's socially 100% ok to use the road/driveway/parking-lot if you have a related purpose". Others have used access=customer for the same meaning, to keep it separate from access=destination. 2) If there access=private, I take that to mean: you could physically use this, but it's just plain not allowed. To have a router use access=private ways/etc., you really need a way to know who is allowed to use which ways. For emergency=yes, that's perhaps separate from access=private, but for individuals with differing permissions, I don't see any way to succeed except to to model the entire set of "joey can use this road" facts. Given your situation, it seems like expecting access=destination is the right answer. access=private really means "unless you specifically have been given permission, you should not be on this road". There's a fine line; I know of a condo complex where there's a gate with a code, and as an invitee I have the code. So I could argue that it's access=private, and that's arguably right. But, from the point of view of making the map database useful, routing over that access=private seems better than not - it makes the situation that invittees with the code get good routing, and those without codes do not, rather than the reverse. Because those with codes are far more likely to be there, that seems socially optimal. And a gate should be modeled as a gate; that's not really the point.
pgpyFhGnWK88E.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
