Most of the highway objects along waterways around here (Po Valley, Northern Italy) that are not open to public motor traffic, and wide enough for dual-track vehicles, are, in my view correctly, tagged as highway=track. They are used for waterway maintenance and for agricultural purposes on the adjacent properties. They may, in addition, explicitly carry cycling, or foot-cycling paths or cycle routes. They may in addition serve as service roads to reach private residences. Often these private residences are on a first, better maintained, part of the road, and this continues as a more track-like road further down. In those cases you could argue the first part is residential.
Many of these tracks have also names, even if there are often no signs. On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, 12:21 Greg Troxel, <g...@lexort.com> wrote: > > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On 1/10/22 20:25, stevea wrote: > >> Makes sense to me, too, Greg. I don't know if it helps or hinders > >> wider understanding, but I understand what Greg is saying here, and > >> while his perspective is "Eastern USA" (and mine is "Western USA"), > >> these don't seem far apart or even different at all, and there may > >> likely be a further possible refinement here: > >> > >> "unclassified" roads, as a "real legal roads" are "in public," and > subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances, and > >> > >> "service" roads, as "private driveways, parking lot aisles and other > >> roads not in the public grid of road network" are "on private > >> property" and not (as) subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances. > > > > That would mean a crash on them would not have road laws applied to it > > .. so the insurance companies could not attribute blame based on road > > laws.. that could get very difficult in court. > > This is not an actual problem in practice (mass.us). Well, traffic > laws and enforcement/liability *are* a mess, but they aren't > differentially messy in this case. > > It is true that you have to file an accident report with the police on > real roads, but not for crashes in parkings lots and driveways. But > liability is from tort law which doesn't care where. And criminal law > about negligent operation (similar for drunk driving) says: > > > https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section24 > > Whoever upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of > access, or any place to which members of the public have access as > invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle recklessly, or > operates such a vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the > public might be endangered.... > > which means business/shopping driveways/lots count. > > But what the law says is not relevant in how we tag. I didn't really > mean "service is not subject to law". I meant that here we have a > concept of a legal road (referred to by "way" above) and places where > you can drive which are not legal roads (referred to by the other text). > > > I know the old definition of our 'motor traffic act' said something > > along the lines of a road is 'any place open to, or used, by the > > public' .. that includes private driveways, car parks etc etc as they > > are 'used by the public'. > > Sure. It is not surprising that law prohibits negligent behavior on > places the public normally goes, even if that is not a legal road. > > But there is still a difference legally in many places. Even if not, I > still think that unclassified for things that feel like actual roads and > service for things that feel like drivways and parking lots, makes > total sense. > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
