On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, > > unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a > > through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? > > What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: > > New Jersey 39:4-66.2 "Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles > being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no > person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public > roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission > of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or > sign."
That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging is never bad). > Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be > access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I > thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And > I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive > as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my > learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous sidewalk that doesn't cross the street.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
