Talk:Tag:access=private
private driveway
I think it is bad practice to tag all service/driveway with an access=private. OSM Map whats verifyable on ground. So mapping access tags without a corresponding sign is exactly the opposite. Mapping from a feeling and not verifyable.
So i'd vote for removing that passage/sentence from the article. Flohoff (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously, tagging all driveways as private is incorrect as not all are private. But article text (that can be improved) has already qualifier "usually". And explicit sign is not only case where mapping access=private is OK, for example closed gate is more than enough Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- That was the point i was making. The wording makes people think to tag every driveway with access=private. And "usally" is a pretty soft wording. As soon as there is something indicating that there is a will of the owner to prevent anyone (Including Postal service) of property this might be the right way to tag. But as soon as you'd expect a Postal service to enter access=private looks pretty wrong. And IMHO a service/driveway has everything in it. We expect routers to not every use these roads for through traffic and more or less handle it as a access=destination. And i am no fan of adding "felt access restrictions" - I am happy with a "gate" or signs "No access" or something (German is even more complicated than that). Flohoff (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Government too?
Mention if private refers to private property vs. government property... and if this tag can ever be used on government property. Jidanni (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- access=private is excactly about ACCESS not ownership. So yes - as long as there is a sign saying that this road is not for the public access=private may be on any kind of road. Although i consider an access=private on anything else than service a little strange. Building a public road network and then refusing to let the public use it. Flohoff (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Flohoff - there are various cases of closed settlements. For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/692621049#map=15/54.1929/15.6732 used to be solely for a personnel of a military airfield and inaccessible otherwise. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- For me these are NOT public roads. They are in a military area and thus cant be something in the highway=residential/unclassified/tertiary hierarchy. Its not for public usage and not part of that road network. Flohoff (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- There are sometimes normal towns - with schools, doctors, churches (probably in this specific case without a church), shops etc. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_city with at least some cases qualifying for access=private. I would argue that is such case you may easily have private residential/tertiary Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- For me these are NOT public roads. They are in a military area and thus cant be something in the highway=residential/unclassified/tertiary hierarchy. Its not for public usage and not part of that road network. Flohoff (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Flohoff - there are various cases of closed settlements. For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/692621049#map=15/54.1929/15.6732 used to be solely for a personnel of a military airfield and inaccessible otherwise. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
One tag
Well when people are looking at a list, to edit just one tag and not go into detail,
- Public
- Private
- Customers only
- etc.
It would be great not to have to lump officials or official use only into "private"! I mean the signs posted make a big deal to say "government use only" etc. In the OSM world on the other hand, they might as well just say "private property, no trespassing," as if there is no more town council, as it has all been sold to Mr. RichMan or something. Jidanni (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Enter at your own risk
When a sign taunts a would-be visitor with "Enter at your own risk", would that be access=private or merely access=discouraged? Or some sort of poorly defined hazard=*? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 08:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- In this case I would consider intended meaning as "no entry", though the same sign may have different interpretation. For example in some places on public land "Enter At Your Own Risk" is clearly only ass-covering and path is widely used, in some cases it was attempt to confuse people and discouraging them from using right of way that was legally granted over private land... Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Not just roads
The wording of this page should not restrict it to only encompass roads.--DaveF63 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
private-maintained vs. private
St. Charles Place Highland Park IL USA's green street sign says "ST CHARLES PL" with "PVT. MTD." in small letters., which must mean "private-maintained" which I suppose is a little different than just "private", as seen elsewhere in that city... Jidanni (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)