On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/11/2011 7:53 AM, Anthony wrote: >> >> The "no thru traffic" sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction >> specific. In general there is no "letter of the law", as the law >> generally does not mention such signs. > > You seem to be right (at least in Florida): > http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C > > So the question is whether access=destination should be used where the sign > exists but has no legal meaning.
I'd be tempted to mark such ways as access=no_thru_traffic, and let the routers figure out what it means. It seems a bit too much to ask mappers to interpret legal statutes and precedents. But really, I don't have a good answer. > (As opposed to > http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.394553,-81.549518&spn=0.0168,0.041199&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.394524,-81.549396&panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRg&cbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 > which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) Enforceable as trespass, I assume. But access=destination wouldn't be accurate there. Using access=destination implies that anyone may (in fact, has a right to) use that way, if they need it to get to their destination. But the sign says that only guests, cast, and business invitees may use the way. As I commented on the wiki, I'd rather see access=restricted for these types of situations. (In this case with access:restriction=guests, cast, and business invitees only.) Or access=customers, if you think that tag is acceptable (but personally I'd rather see a very small number of access tags). Again, personally, I'd use access=private before I'd use access=destination. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us