A further issue we haven't talk about: How much detail is ok on residential property, from a privacy viewpoint? Is mapping of "no trespassing signs" going too far?
We show structures, and we show driveways. These don't feel invasive given imagery. They are very useful for navigation, particularly with long driveways. We don't map much else. To me, marking individual driveways about whether they have a no trespassing sign or not, is a bit much. It feels a bit dangerous, in terms of getting it wrong and expectations. Yes, you can see them from the road, but still. I also don't think it's all that useful. When you are going somewhere, you need to pay attention, regardless of the map. And you know why you are going, and if you have some kind of permission, and we are not going to automate that. So to me, private_signed and private_unsigned, or whatever, are extremely close to the same thing. I see signed or not as a minor detail, and I would prefer not to map it. (But, I won't tell you not to map it.) I do object to a tagging scheme unless it has a tag appropriate for unsigned residential driveways that is viewed as not-really-wrong for driveways that happen to be signed. I mean that in the sense that it isn't objectionable, not that it can't be refined. Sort of like "building=yes" is not wrong but changing it to "building=barn" is better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
