Re: [Tagging] access with permit (gone double OT)

19. May 2018 06:17 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : > On the one hand, I have cases like the (still unsolved) "public land, permit > required to enter", which I wish to distinguish and render differently on my > maps from both "public land, open without

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I'm not sure that http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/2574.html doesn't ever > overlay atop another permit scheme, although it wouldn't surprise me. > And for what it's worth, that would be motor_vehicle:no

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Mark Wagner wrote: > On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:20:57 -0400 > Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > By the same token it's possible to imagine

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 25-Sep-17 04:20 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: access=permit Yes operator=* ... no - the permit organisation may not be 'operator'. I much prefer the permit:*=* system as that does

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > access=permit Yes > operator=* ... no - the permit organisation may not be 'operator'. I much > prefer the permit:*=* system as that does signify that it is strictly > related to the permit. > If a fee is required then

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Ok, Warin My suggestion was only a last resorce if "access=permit" loses the vote process again. I understand a permit is not a fee, is "some kind of paperwork done in advance" - José Moya El 24/9/2017 3:37, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió: On 21-Sep-17 04:01 PM, José G Moya Y. wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 21-Sep-17 04:01 PM, José G Moya Y. wrote: Hi I agree with the permit system as it is discused here. I found it useful for National Parks, specially for World Heritage Biosphere Reservations,  where a small amount of people has to book in advance. If it keeps getting a strong opposition, you

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Kevin Kenny writes: > The last few messages in this thread seem to have quieted much of the > discussion. Let me summarize my position, and see if we've achieved > rough consensus. > > access=permit (and (transport mode)=permit): > > Symbolizes that the

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

@Kevin - let's move you off the fork and onto a revised proposal. Your explanation covers all the bases, and quite well I must say. I can't imagine what else might pop up during continued debate but it's obvious to me that the tag is necessary, justified, and its use well reasoned. Thanks again

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:34 PM, marc marc wrote: > you do so much slalom to avoid the categories access=private and fee=yes > that I persist in believing that it would be easy to add tags to these 2 > functions that already work to explain the conditions in which

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

you do so much slalom to avoid the categories access=private and fee=yes that I persist in believing that it would be easy to add tags to these 2 functions that already work to explain the conditions in which access is possible. this would allow to tag in the same way a road leading to a lake

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Thanks to everyone for continued patience with trying to refine the definition. I think we've most likely reached a point where "with all the horse puckey about, there must be a pony in there somewhere!" Let me try to take another run at the hill. WHERE DOES ACCESS=PERMIT APPLY?

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Folks, a permit is nothing more than a written form of permission. The OED defines permit as "an official document giving permission to do something". It doesn't imply anything other than that. In my original post, I said I needed a way to tag a fishing pond located within a military zone so that

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-21 14:40 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > - access to a Low Emission Zone >> > > > IMHO this has nothing to do with "permit", you don't need a permit, you > (or better: your vehicle) must satisfy certain conditions. Those are more > similar to maxweight or maxheight IMHO

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 2017-09-21 14:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-09-21 12:10 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe : > >> I mentioned two different situations where access=permit would also be the >> most logical tag: >> >> - access to a Low Emission Zone > > IMHO this has nothing to do

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 2017-09-21 11:03, Marc Gemis wrote: > Is there a risk that people will start adding access=permit to > everything in a country for which you need to have a visa to enter the > country ? Not everyone needs a visa of course, so it cannot be a simple attribute of a country. > Or even worse, to

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-21 12:10 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe : > I mentioned two different situations where access=permit would also be the > most logical tag: > > - access to a Low Emission Zone > IMHO this has nothing to do with "permit", you don't need a permit, you (or better: your

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-21 11:05 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout : > >it depends what "permit" actually means: > > I don't see that as having any bearing on the present proposal. The tag > means only that a permit is required to access the object. > > Whether such an instrument is difficult to

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

I mentioned two different situations where access=permit would also be the most logical tag: - access to a Low Emission Zone - access to certain roads in cities (e.g. this road is accesible to certain motor_vehicle if they ask for a permit: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25728312) It would be

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

>Is there a risk that people will start adding access=permit to >everything in a country for which you need to have a visa to enter the >country ? >Or even worse, to all streets with motor_vehicle=permit because you >need a driver license and a number plate for your car ? >This the proposal

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

>it depends what "permit" actually means: I don't see that as having any bearing on the present proposal. The tag means only that a permit is required to access the object. Whether such an instrument is difficult to get, must be paid for, must be adjudicated before some governing body, or

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Is there a risk that people will start adding access=permit to everything in a country for which you need to have a visa to enter the country ? Or even worse, to all streets with motor_vehicle=permit because you need a driver license and a number plate for your car ? This the proposal excluding

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

@SwiftFast, >So far I just used "access=customers" and explained the permit required >in "description". Based on what the Wiki says, I don't think your usage is quite correct: This tag applies to objects which may be used or accessed only by *customers* of a specific store, bank, restaurant,

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 17:29 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny : > I am told that access=permit is > the same thing as access=private (which, as far as I can determine, is > also no different from access=no). I accept that. > it depends what "permit" actually means: 1) can it be obtained

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

@warin wrote, >NO. The formal process is" ... ... >*OR* >You can simply use the tag. There are some 235 uses from taginfo now, so it has been used. >As there are few of these tags around then it should be documented - create a new wiki page. >235 is not large but it does establish a use.

[Tagging] Access by permit

So far I just used "access=customers" and explained the permit required in "description". ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Hi I agree with the permit system as it is discused here. I found it useful for National Parks, specially for World Heritage Biosphere Reservations, where a small amount of people has to book in advance. If it keeps getting a strong opposition, you could consider mapping as access=fee and adding

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 21-Sep-17 11:24 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: I am in total agreement with the proposal as it's been developed in this thread. I too am unfamiliar with structuring the voting process but it may be enough to simply add a new section "Voting" at the end of the page, copying some boiler-plate

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

I am in total agreement with the proposal as it's been developed in this thread. I too am unfamiliar with structuring the voting process but it may be enough to simply add a new section "Voting" at the end of the page, copying some boiler-plate from some other proposal, and advertising on this

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 21-Sep-17 06:01 AM, marc marc wrote: Le 20. 09. 17 à 20:39, Kevin Kenny a écrit : Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate? I do not see any difference between access=permit and (not tag for) access to a sports club : you can go there if you meet certain conditions and generally

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Summary first: This looks very good to me, and I think it is in line with the discussion here in the last few days. I support this. * Kevin Kenny [170920 20:39]: > The last few messages in this thread seem to have quieted much of the > discussion. Let me summarize

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Le 20. 09. 17 à 20:39, Kevin Kenny a écrit : > Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate? I do not see any difference between access=permit and (not tag for) access to a sports club : you can go there if you meet certain conditions and generally any sports club allows you to "buy a

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

How about access=private and access:stranger=permit? However, military=* and access=private seems to conflict as military zone implies specific access rules. 20-09-2017 21:39 tarihinde Kevin Kenny yazdı: > > If details of permit administration are observable on the ground, we > can work out ways

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

The last few messages in this thread seem to have quieted much of the discussion. Let me summarize my position, and see if we've achieved rough consensus. access=permit (and (transport mode)=permit): Symbolizes that the landowner requires permission for access, but has a policy that

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Unfortunately, it might never happen because even with what I see as > crystal clear reasoning provided by Kevin, it's obvious to > me consensus will not be possible within the group. But should it somehow > come

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think the tagging on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424226491 > goes far enough. > There is no specific contact information for a permit. > Not all permits come from the land owners/controllers some come from >

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

>To me access=public would be the same as access=yes - no permission required. Yes, for me too. That's not the point here. I merely said that by comparison, IMO, access=permit is more like access=public (or access=yes) than it is to access=private. If you think access=private is closer, so be it.

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 19-Sep-17 09:54 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: On 19-Sep-17 03:56 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: The real-life sign says, "Access by permit only, for information contact..." and that's what I

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19-Sep-17 03:56 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The real-life sign says, "Access by permit only, for information > contact..." and that's what I propose to map! > > Yep. > I think the important thing is the contact information

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 19-Sep-17 03:56 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM, joost schouppe > wrote: That said, even if this hivemind of ours (and let me add to that "one of us, one of us, one of us") maybe does not like an

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 19 September 2017 at 03:56, Kevin Kenny wrote: > What I wanted was much more minimalistic: "permission is needed to enter > here, but permission is ordinarily granted." > Kevin Would something simple like access=yes once approved (decription - you must apply for

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM, joost schouppe wrote: > That said, even if this hivemind of ours (and let me add to that "one of > us, one of us, one of us") maybe does not like an extra value for the > access key, I see no reason why you would need to use another

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Hi! Thanks for the link to Low Emmision zone (LEZ) wiki. I've added a small entry for Spain. More information have to be added, but the webpage of Madrid city is uninformative -- that's the reason it has been awarded. -Jose M. El 18/9/2017 18:39, "joost schouppe"

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Kevin, What I wanted to make clear before is that you are not the only one who thinks access=permit could be useful. Also, don't make the mistake of conflating tagging and OSM-in-general opinion. That said, even if this hivemind of ours (and let me add to that "one of us, one of us, one of us")

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Going over old ground once more: The proposal is abandoned based on strong opposition from the community. I am told that access=permit is the same thing as access=private (which, as far as I can determine, is also no different from access=no). I accept that. Warin's opinion is an obvious

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

> Is access by permit not permissive access? No. According to the wiki permissive means "Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future.", while permit means almost the opposite: "closed except for people

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

Is access by permit not permissive access? access=permissive, permissive=permit maybe. Fishing rights are very different to access and need to be treated as a separate issue. Phil (trigpoint) On 18 September 2017 13:20:41 BST, Dave Swarthout wrote: >>There are

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

>There are different difficulties of gaining a 'permit'. Some have a numerical limit, some a schedule, some are simply a paperwork exercise. >There are numerical limits on popular walking tracks to stop overuse (e.g. Milford Track New Zealand, Overland Track Australia). >A fair proportion of

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

In Gent, Belgium, they would also have liked to use access=permit. There are some new situations there where you need a local government permit to pass certain "breakpoints" within the city. In the end, they used access=private because it was the tagging style that would be most useful to people

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 18-Sep-17 04:47 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On 18 September 2017 at 14:55, Kevin Kenny > wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Dave Swarthout > wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 18 September 2017 at 14:55, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > >> I'm trying to tag some stocked fishing ponds that reside on a military >> reservation in Alaska, Fort Greely. The ponds

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I'm trying to tag some stocked fishing ponds that reside on a military > reservation in Alaska, Fort Greely. The ponds are stocked by the > Alaska Department of Fish & Game but require a special permit for access.

[Tagging] Access by permit

I'm trying to tag some stocked fishing ponds that reside on a military reservation in Alaska, Fort Greely. The ponds are stocked by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game but require a special permit for access. This is from the Department of Fish & Game website: These lakes are on military land. A