Recently, a user has been removing access=private tagging from a large number of roads over a long period of time. Many of these roads turned out to be private roads marked with NO TRESPASSING signs and other similar indications of their private access status.
Incorrect/inappropriate removal of private access tagging is of course a real problem that can cause damage to OSM’s reputation and put map users in harm’s way.
This recently came to a head in the changeset below, in DWG ticket #2025060410000023
DWG helpfully generated a list of roads for which the access tagging has been widened by this user, organized by location. I’ve been reviewing the list for Rhode Island and it seems to be a mix of legitimate changes and inappropriate ones. I’m working through the Rhode Island list where I have local knowledge, to apply the right access restrictions.
The remainder of the list is mostly in Massachusetts, with a handful of cases in Alabama, Maine, Texas, and Pennsylvania
Is there anyone that wants to take on reviewing the rest of this list? If not, I would propose to simply restore the prior private access tagging in a bulk edit.
The list, minus the Rhode Island cases, can be found here:
Maybe the related services/companies use routing apps which consider the access restrictions. Iirc OsmAnd has a plugin for trucks that can go through private roads.
Osmand has this as a togglable option for any routing profile. By default, this is set to “no” in which if the only possible route involves private, it will basically ask “Hey, we can get you close but it involves private roads, or we can get you as close as the end of public access, which do you want?”
w15144469 in Texas looks correct to me. There are no posted signs on streetside, and the part of the way that is behind the gate is still private.
w7537471 in Alabama is less clear - it was added as access=private in the original TIGER import and looks like a driveway, but there is a street sign at the corner which is extremely blurry but appears to say Harris Drive. I added an estimated width and surface to the road, but didn’t readd access=private.
the three ways in Maine are all on Monhegan Island, which bans cars (except for a few pickups and golf carts, apparently). Someone who is familiar with this island will have to validate these changes
it might be necessary to rerun the query with the specific access tags like foot, bicycle, etc included, since there were other ways in the Maine changeset which had specific access values widened, but were not included in the list.
access=private means the general public is not allowed, but certain individuals are granted access. If one is invited, they are granted access. A delivery person isn’t invited as a personal guest, but if a resident has requested a delivery that is a type of invitation and thus a grant of access.
Thanks, that wasn’t really obvious to me from “Access is granted with individual permission only” on the wiki, so I added a sentence specifically about delivery and pickup to Key:access - OpenStreetMap Wiki, please correct if necessary!
I believe the Wiki indicates “private” wasn’t intended for roads where there is “PVT” sign or something similar. Rather it was intended for roads where there is a physical barrier, i.e. a gate.
That is definitely not correct. There are many roads with very strongly-worded NO TRESPASSING signs (and no physical barrier) that are clearly access=private. If that’s in conflict with the wiki, it needs to get updated.
Absolutely (generally) agree on this! Also, concerning deliveries specifically, access=no would indicate a further restriction to access=private (i.e. ways tagged =no might not admit even deliveries, as opposed to =private).
The title or rubric of this thread has “mostly Massachusetts” in it, but just for completeness’ sake and for posterity, there are cases where “No trespassing” signs (even if massively ubiquitous) do not have the force of law, and where any restrictive access key would be incorrect. See the Wiki page for the pihatie tag for an example. This is admittedly obscure (and something of a pet peeve of mine ).
).