Best practices for applying access=private?

If the road is private then tag it as such. Don't worry about how it looks on map.

1. If the road leading to gated neighborhood is two separate roads (for example with grass or threes in the middle) then the way you are tagging is OK. If there is only one road with one gate then it is questionable.

2. If the road behind the gate can be accessed only through gates then apply the access=private tag to the road behind the gates. But bear in mind that this applies to all means of transportation. Sometimes these gates are there to block cars and there are no restrictions for pedestrians. So you should tag main transportation means differently (appropriate keys from wiki).

3. I Assume that you mistakenly switched two map links. The area with a gated neighborhood might look a little bit too red but it is the question of rendering. The way things are tagged is the way I would tag them (except for the small road parts from the main road till the gate that are probably not private.

4. You are right about the reasons. We are tagging it to get nice looking maps, to help routing engines and probably there will be some other uses for this kind of data we just don't know or use jet. There are (at least) three things that have to be ok for your device to route you to access=private destination:

   • Devices firmware has to support such feature.

   • Map data conversation from osm format to format that is supported by your device is done by including this access data.

   • The data itself contains correctly tagged private roads.

   At least it is not hard to fulfill the third part of it.

Just mark road as private if its appropriate, simply don't care what the map renderer will do with the tag. But remember that the access tag has more values than just "yes" and "private". For example streets within a gated neighborhood could be marked with access=permissive or access=destination. I would prefer the latter.

My instinct would be that if it's private, mark it as private. Let the renderers/routers figure out how they want to handle that situation. If routers don't want to go in there, then that's really a problem for the people who have chosen to lock themselves away from the world.

1. Map it as it is. I can't tell you a generic rule for "gated communities" because they might handle access differently.
2. If you know it, it is always better to be explicit and add access-tags to the gate (barrier=gate has no default meaning for access).
3. Also tag the roads with appropriate access-tags (see 1). The access-tag on a gate does not imply anything for the road. You can have gates with access=private and on both sides of the gate access=yes for instance.
4. Don't think about the implementation rules of current routers and renderers, but rather how you can represent unambiguously and in detail a real world situation in the data. If the data defines the situation well, data consumers will adopt and learn how to deal with this even if they don't do at the moment.

My take is that the "public/permissive/private/no" distinctions don't actually work very well. They make sense in the British legal system, where it's all about "right of way". But in practice, there are lots of shades of meaning that get lost in the single specifier "private":

• an individual landowner where no one else would ever go
• a corporation where employees and some visitors would go
• a company, government body, university where the public is welcome, if they have business there
• some kind of limited residential area like you describe
• probably many others

There really should be more options, like "restricted", or, as some have proposed "destination" (you can go in only if it's your destination).

I'd also ignore the advice of those that say "map it as it is, and ignore renderers and routers". That would make sense if we had clear standards to follow. Instead, we have a complex feedback loop between mappers (data producers) and routers/renderers (data consumers). If mapping "access=private" on roads looks bad, and if there's a reasonable case for only putting the tag on the gate, then go for it.

I'd understand it as:

• access=yes : if my car/bike/HGV is on that road, I am perfectly within my rights to be their at any time for any reason, and nobody has the right to tell me to leave.
• access=private : I can only be there with the explicit authorisation of the landowner (or other delegated authority).
• access=destination : I have implicit permission from the landowner to be there only if I have a legitimate reason specifically to be in that area (so I can't, for example, park there in order to walk/cycle somewhere else)
• access=permissive : I have implicit permission from the landowner to be there at any time, unless the landowner explicitly denies me access.

A gate could have different access to the way behind it... so, for example I might expect: - a gate which is normally, or always unlocked could be "permissive", even if the way behind it is "destination" or "private" (legally and practically no different to the same access restrictions without the gate being there, but the gate helps to act as a reminder...) - a gate where you have to enter a code or be "buzzed in" would be "private", even if the way behind it has more permissive access. It would seem unlikely to me for a way behind a locked gate to be access=yes though - at best, it would be access=permissive, implying that anyone who is allowed past the gate then can use all the ways behind it without seeking (further) authorisation.

As I'm understanding the key:access page, often access=X isn't actually what you want, despite common practice... for example, "no motor vehicles, except for access" would be motor_vehicle=destination, rather than access=destination. Using access=destination creates more work for yourself, as then you'd also need to add explicit exceptions like bike=yes, foot=yes, horse=yes, etc. Although it isn't the reason you'd do it, this also avoids it looking as ugly in the renderers based on standard style sheets which only pick up on the access=X restrictions.

I'm still part-way up a learning curve myself. I know there are a handful of things I've tagged incorrectly, but I'll review them later when I understand more of the subtleties better. I'm assuming something similar to WP:DEADLINE applies here... that what I actually do should be reasonably accurate - at least to an extent of being "more accurate than it was before I edited it", but that there's no specific deadline for anything which isn't perfect on the first pass - I or someone else will be back to fill in the remaining details later.

Going to post my opinions on this old thread because I found this posting after searching for further clarification to this uncomfortable topic.

Personally, I try to tag what is visible on the object. If there is a sign that says "Private Road", then I will try to reflect this in the tags. I realize some would disagree, as the wiki specifies ascertaining the restrictions from the property owner, but ultimately who makes this decision? I am not going to find a town clerk, so they can override a street sign, and neither would someone using the OSM data to explore that road, later.

I believe a good map will help the viewer envision what they will truly observe in that location.

As for your question about the gated access, I believe the question answers itself, in so much that the gate should be marked as such "barrier=gate" and any road restrictions posted on the gate should be reflected in the OSM highway tags.

Old thread or not, I found it looking for examples to provide guidance, and it seems relevant enough to add on here rather than ask a new question. (right?)

Also, in a rural "development" that has Easements for ingress/egress, I am marking the roadways across private property as Destination, unless that way is a dead end, and accesses nobody else's property, then it is finally private, and no longer a Residential way, but a Driveway. So in what cases would a way marked Residential, still be correct in being also marked Private? To my thinking, those two can't go together. Comments please?

Also in response to mtc, this neighborhood described is full of no trespassing signs and even illegal gates, to block or discourage legitimate traffic. So just having signs along any kind of roadways, is not the end of the story.

I still have a question for private roads in most areas that have no easements, most rural areas in the US, and thus where all kinds of conflicts exist as to whether or not people have a right to be on a roadway. Is there a final answer for private roads (not county maintained or public) across private property that have landowners beyond them requiring access? It seems to me if it has more than one destination, it should be tagged permissive.

Further, why is it in IDedit when I add a service road, type driveway, is permission defaulting to all? Are there cases where driveways can be public?