From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 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 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)