Colin Smale wrote: > > [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your > letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass > over your land to fulfil his legal duty.
Sure. But access=private has nothing to do with private ownership. See below. > I believe that there is a defence to trespass on the grounds of "custom" > which IMHO would cover deliveries to your door, or someone needing > emergency help, or door-to-door salesmen (all in the absence of explicit > signing to the contrary of course). Well, explicit signing like "keep out" is what's currently being discussed. Or places that may be unsigned, but still make it clear that by entering without permission, you break the law and may have to answer for it. Think of a closed gate or something like that; the details of what's lawful and what isn't vary by jurisdiction. That's what access=private is being used for. > On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote: >> >> For example, here are a few images of "keep out" signs. Now think of >> somebody making a package delivery. How are they supposed to determine >> whether "implicit" permission exists in their individual case or not? Is it >> different for some of these signs, or are they all the same in this regard? > > I expect a "keep out" sign would probably override implicit permission? Agreed. Mateusz changed the wiki to say different. Clearly, consensus does not currently exist to support that change. >> BTW, let me point out that choosing not to take legal action is not the same >> thing as giving permission. >> And assuming that no one will take legal action is not the same thing has >> having received permission. > > Which is exactly why a driveway is access=private. Maybe a delivery > driver doesn't have "permission" as such, but he may have a reasonable > justification to use your driveway. I think you're confusing access=private with ownership=private here. This is an example of a typical access=private driveway: (8) https://4.imimg.com/data4/OR/NG/MY-11485274/ms-gate-500x500.jpg Note the strong gate and the intercom on the right pillar, which could be used to obtain permission to enter. A delivery driver would probably be expected to use that intercom, even if the gate happened to be open (again, the actual legality may vary by jurisdiction). Most driveways have less imposing access restrictions in place. Many have no physical barriers or signs at all. They're still private ground, but with nothing to indicate restrictions to a visitor, it would not be unlawful to enter the driveway when visiting the house. Therefore, such driveways are _not_ access=private; perhaps they are access=destination or access=permissive, but as Flo pointed out, adding these tags to driveways in OSM isn't very useful. Here's an example for such a situation: (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting the use of the access=private tag here. -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
