Thanks, that's a fair challenge and one that I don't think is raised often in the OSM community. My understanding is that OSM leans heavily towards what is verifiable (either on the ground or via a permissive legal source, for example Definitive Maps to define PROWs). If a sign on the ground says 'Private' but there's a document to the contrary held in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard', it's probably going to be marked as private in OSM.maximus meridius wrote: ↑13 Mar 2023, 4:22pmQuite possibly. The "truth on the ground" as you put it, may very well be vastly different to any legal rights. That's why I sometimes ride on the pavement. But if your point is that the intention of "allowed access" tags is to identify the legal rights of access then that is clear. My phrase "the law, land ownership, permissions" may have been too wordy for you, or unclear. But those three things may, or may not, overlap or combine to affect legal access.
There's a recent example/case study here and here. The farmer's intentions were noble, but we don't deny the reality of what is on the ground in OSM, and therefore the edits were reverted.
You're right that access=no is more focussed on physical access, I consider it a subset of access=private. If you will, a "this is practically impassable" tag. My view is that if the locked gate were to be replaced with large slabs of concrete or a similar immovable obstacle, then access=no would be appropriate. But (in my opinion) it's often misused as closer to synonymous with access=private.maximus meridius wrote: ↑13 Mar 2023, 1:23amInteresting, thanks for that. Notable that despite the idea that "access" tags are always to do with legal restrictions, the wiki article gives an example where "access=no" might be appropriate because of a physical barrier. In fact the section of the wiki article devoted to "access=no" is almost entirely concerned with physical reasons why that tag might be appropriate, rather than the legal ones which are supposed to be the reason for using an "access" tag. Hence why I suggest that a locked gate, being a physical barrier, would be a sensible thing to add to one end of the lane. And why an "access=no" tag might be appropriate (at least for a section of the track), as per the wiki article. Of course one may think that it can't be "access=no" because the farm workers need access. But the wiki article centres around the idea of "access=no" being use for work under construction. So the construction workers need access. It seems to me that "access=private" is actually appropriate there, except that of course will need updating once the work is done. But so would "access=no". The temporary nature of the roadworks notwithstanding. As some roadworks can last a long time.