[Tagging] reviving an abandoned proposal

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

There is an abandoned proposal about tagging hollow ways [1]. How does one
go about reviving it?

Reviving abandoned proposals in general does not seem to be explained in
the wiki [2] (but I'm not the best at reading doc). I would want to adapt
the proposal with the input from the discussion. Is it OK to just adapt the
existing page, or is there a point at which it really becomes a new
proposal?

I avoided any content about the proposal itself in this message, so as to
keep the discussion focused. If you can't help yourself, please start a new
thread about the example itself :)


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hollow_way
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process

-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> Yep. I asked a similar question at
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028504.html
> but there was no particular consensus.
>
> access=permit seems to have moderate usage (slightly more than =license,
> which is in any case misspelled) so I'd go for that.


You've just demonstrated that this is a recurring issue. "You have to get
permission, but permission will not ordinarily be refused" is a common
situation here in the US. What's the process for modifying the 'accepted'
set of values? (I presume that simply wikifying it would be regarded as
vandalism.)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I just want to be able to look at my map and answer the 
> quick question, "is there red tape that I have to plan for 
> before I plan a trip here?"

Yep. I asked a similar question at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028504.html
but there was no particular consensus.

access=permit seems to have moderate usage (slightly more than =license,
which is in any case misspelled) so I'd go for that.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/How-to-tag-public-lands-that-are-accessed-by-permit-tp5878730p5878819.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Kevin Kenny]

Oops, accidentally sent this from the wrong mailbox again.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> Also, we aren't being consistent with such a strict definition.  There
> are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
> That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
> rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
> reasonable times.  So technically they should perhaps be permissive, but
> really that does not match.  Arguably we should have
> access=public_invited, which is subtly different from yes in that there
> is no legal right.  But I think leaving them untagged (and thus yes) is
> just fine and it's a problem that doesn't need addressing.
>

I thought that the issue of shopping malls was what 'access=customers'
was invented to handle.

But "access=customers" doesn't fit very well with the parks that I've
been working on.

I just want to be able to look at my map and answer the quick
question, "is there red tape that I have to plan for before I
plan a trip here?" If the answer is "yes," I can look at other
sources to find out what the requirements are - they may be as
simple as tucking my New York City access card in my pack,
or they may involve trying to book a specific date, or even
entering a permit lottery months in advance. In the vast majority
of places where I go, it's simply filling out a form on a website
or stopping off at a ranger station to do a little paperwork.

It's common in American law to say that something
"requires permission" when the permission is granted, always,
by policy, and the real requirement is that you request it,
as a means of notifying the authorities of your intentions.
We write laws that say, "thou shalt not," and then designate
the government agency that has the authority to waive the
law. Many "thou shalt not"s are really, "if you're planning
to do this, we really, really want to review your plans
first," and I've done a good many things with paperwork
that has titles like "Temporary Revocable Permit" or
"Special Temporary Operating Authority."

At this point, I'm not trying to encode all of the Ptolemaic
epicycles that tend to accrete on a permitting system. I'm willing to
say "access=permit foot=yes permit:website=..." as an
oversimplification of some actual regulation like:

"the facility charges horseback riders, drivers and passengers in
motor vehicles a fee for entry during the period that commences on the
Friday before the fourth Monday in May and ends on the second Monday
in October.  Entry on foot or by bicycle is free of charge at all
times, but a fee may be charged for use of the bathhouse and swimming
beach or for rental of a campsite.  Outside the listed dates, entry is
free but the bathhouse, boat launch and swimming beach are closed.
Fees are waived for New York State residents age 62 and over and for
holders of an Empire Passport access permit. The waiver does not apply
to campsite rental.  Roads are not maintained in winter and may be
accessible only by snowshoes, skis or snowmobile. Snowshoes or skis
are required at any time that there is more than an 8 inches (20 cm)
of snow on the trails. Snowmobiles and horses may be taken
only on trails designated for their use."

because someone seeing 'access=permit' can look on the web site for
the details.

I also would propose to use 'access=permit' (or whatever other consensus
emerges) for private lands whose owners participate in the ASK program
.
I find that even when a landowner doesn't participate in the program
(yet), the permission card 
is a valuable tool - it looks governmental,
and reminds the owner that he's generally NOT opening himself
to liability by giving permission (which is the usual reason to refuse).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 20 lug 2016, alle ore 15:06, Greg Troxel  ha 
>> scritto:
>> 
>> There
>> are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
>> That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
>> rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
>> reasonable times.
>
>
> unless of course you look like a homeless person or are pursuing some
> kind of political campaign or are asking people for money etc. Really
> in these private pseudo public spaces the owner can expel people at
> will for no reason or any reason.

True, except that they can't expel them for an unlawful reason :-)

But in all seriousness, these usually do not have access tags, and
that is not an actual problem.

I realize this is blurring rendering, but I see annotations on
access=private/no (which is good), and on access=permissive (which is
fine, for things that truly fit permissive).  But putting the permissive
icon on shopping mall ways would not serve the map users well.  So I
really just meant that 'pseudo-public' as you call it, which is a good
term, is another case that's between access=yes and access=permissive.

Something like
access=public_welcome_if_you_arent_doing_something_usually_objectionable_on_pseudopublic_land

but at least a little less verbose.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 20 lug 2016, alle ore 15:06, Greg Troxel  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> There
> are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
> That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
> rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
> reasonable times.


unless of course you look like a homeless person or are pursuing some kind of 
political campaign or are asking people for money etc. Really in these private 
pseudo public spaces the owner can expel people at will for no reason or any 
reason.


Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Il giorno 20 lug 2016, alle ore 15:06, Greg Troxel  ha scritto:

>> To gain access to private property, you have to ask the landowner (or
>> their agent). If you want to cross my back yard, you can't - it's
>> private. But I can give you explicit permission.
> 
> You have said "private property", but that's not really the right
> sense.   I think you mean "any property which is not by law open to all
> people, such as a public right of way".
> 
> A military base in the US would not be considered "private property", as
> it's ownedby the federal government, but you need permission.


I think he's referring to a particular country. As a counterexample, in Germany 
as a pedestrian you have the right to access all land (outside of settlements) 
e.g. forests, farmland, meadows etc., unless it is fenced (what fortunately is 
rarely the case) or you would risk harming the crop.


cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Greg Troxel]

Colin Smale  writes:

> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are
> loads of people with that explicit permission. 

The notion that all places that need permission are equivalent is
technically true in a non-useful way.

> To gain access to private property, you have to ask the landowner (or
> their agent). If you want to cross my back yard, you can't - it's
> private. But I can give you explicit permission. 

You have said "private property", but that's not really the right
sense.   I think you mean "any property which is not by law open to all
people, such as a public right of way".

A military base in the US would not be considered "private property", as
it's ownedby the federal government, but you need permission.

> If the land is privately owned but the landowner makes no attempt to
> keep you out, then it's access=permissive. But in this case, you are not
> allowed in without *explicit* permission, so it's private. Unless (in
> the UK anyway) it is a Public Right of Way - then the landowner has no
> rights to keep you out, so the path may be access=yes even though the
> land it crosses may be access=no/private. 

The point that I and Kenny made on imports is that there are two very
different situations:

  private, and really there is no expectation that some random person
  can easily/reasonably get permission or that it's reasonable to ask

  a permit system, where it's controlled somehow, but really you can go
  there after you follow the rules, and there's an expectation that
  permits will be issued to those who ask

This is essentially splitting what you are wanting to call private into
private and permit.  In terms of planning/etc., the notion that
permission will be granted after some application formality is entirely
different from a place where there is no expectation that permission
would be granted absent some pre-existing relationship.   I see this as
a first-class top-level distinction, partly because I don't see the
world through the UK lens of "public right of way vs evertyhing else".

Also, state parks that charge admission in your view should be labeled
access=private; paying for a park pass and filling out a permit
application are more or less the same thing.

Also, we aren't being consistent with such a strict definition.  There
are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
reasonable times.  So technically they should perhaps be permissive, but
really that does not match.  Arguably we should have
access=public_invited, which is subtly different from yes in that there
is no legal right.  But I think leaving them untagged (and thus yes) is
just fine and it's a problem that doesn't need addressing.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag high water marks (flood marks)?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

it appears there is already this tag in use, which might cover part of what
you are after:
monitoring:water_level

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

[Maarten Deen]

I think the general concencus is that waterway=fairway is a useful tag. 
I'll just add it to the wiki so people will know about it.
I'm also going to change the waterway=lake to waterway=fairway where I 
come across it and think it should be changed.


Regards,
Maarten

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging