I think there should be a new access tag for the "with permission only, but you are likely to get it" case. Years ago OsmAnd tried to send me on a "shortcut" through a military base while I was cycling. It turned out that I could've used the road in question *if* I had contacted the base in advance and gotten a recreation permit. For now that road is tagged as access=private, but that doesn't tell the user that they can use it if they plan ahead.
That is a little different from the case we have here, which seems to me more like the difference between "access=private" and "access=extra_private". Without creating new tags, I think the access=private/destination distinction is the closest we can get to reality. On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:32 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Mar 21, 2019, 4:11 PM by [email protected]: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:01 AM Mateusz Konieczny > <[email protected]> wrote: > > For start, "residents only" gate is for me clearly access=private. > > "manned main gate" - is access strongly restricted? > If nearly everybody, including vehicles, is let in I would tag it > access=yes. > It would also mean that access=destination would be better than > access=private > for inner ways of community. > > If access is strongly filtered (entrance requires permission from resident > or > guard is likely to resuse) then I would tag both gates access=private. > Though it means that these gates are again not distinguishable. > > > In practice, for the gated communities that I'm familiar with, there's > not that significant a difference between access=destination and > access=private at the main gate from this standpoint. If you have > business in the community - pretty much equivalent to 'your > destination is inside the community' - you're extremely likely to have > the permission of a resident or business owner inside the gates. > Nevertheless, if you're not a resident with a key card, you're not > going to get through the automated gates. So access=destination for > the main gate is in theory no more permissive than access=private, but > gives a router a strong indication that "here is the correct entrance > for visitors." > > I agree that access=destination is also better than access=private for > roads inside the gate that are usable by visitors. (access=private is > appropriate for service ways that lead to residents-only parking and > similar things.) > > AFAIK access=destination is not limited to "I have permission from someone > within", it also covers things like "I want to leave promotional > leaflets", or > "I want to walk around". > > It is rather for "no thru traffic" / "local traffic only" than "with > permission only". > > Though I have no idea how to distinguish > "with permission only, you are likely to get it if you have a good reason" > and > "with permission only, to get it you need to be an owner of a flat" > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- -- Evan Derickson (360) 402-6494
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
