Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Warin]

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 could consider mapping as 
access=fee and adding a "book" tag somewhere in the fee system, such 
as fee=book, to make users know the access needs booking in advance.

But I prefer access=permit.


'fee' is an already established key. Don't change its use. fee=book 
makes no sense considering the present use of 'fee'.

access is not used to signify fee. Don't change that.

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 permit:fee=* might be suitable ... similar to 
the contact details permit:phone/website/email=* ?



Definitions??? Something like?
A permit is a formal process required to gain access, typically 
resulting in a issue of a paper form.

It is not the membership of an organisation (e.g. sporting culb).


El 21/9/2017 4:48, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> escribió:


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 from some other proposal, and
advertising on this list. The voting, just like any discussion we
engage in on these mailing lists, is open to debate and the
result is AFAIK non-binding. People can do as they wish afterward.

NO. The formal process is to;
1) create a proposal page -
2) then call for comments as a new subject here on this list.
3) After at least 2 weeks consider any comments made, modify the
proposal and if that looks good
4) then call for votes as a new subject here on this list.
5) after another 2 weeks and some number of votes consider if it
passes

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.

Taginfo also has use of 'permit' .. no explanation of what these
are for and the numbers are small.

Comment - there are a few that use it for car parks in the US. But
no information on where to obtain a permit.
I do think that the permit contact details need to be available,
and this should be suggested a a 'recommendation'? on the wiki page.



Many thanks to Kevin for the work you've done on this tag.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:

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 any sports club allows you to
"buy a permit
according to their formality"
I see no difference with private property either. if you
"follow"
my formalities, you will have the right to come at home.
I think that it would be preferable to improve access=private
by adding a tag to describe any means of "overriding"
this restriction
rather than inventing a new type of access that is
between sports clubs
are public for the moment), access=private and paying
infrastructure
like tool roads.


The primary difference between access=private and access=permit
is that a formal permit system exists that anyone can easily use.
Some permits are easy and free,
some you and I cannot get (unless you are the right tribe or
have strong cultural connections).

Examples;
The Kokoda Trail is not 'owned' by the permit authority.
Here the Trail goes through many villages and is administered
by a government appointed body.
The practice here is to get a permit from the authority and
not bother with the property owners.
Typically normal people will use a guided 'tour' and that
organisation will be registered with the authority and get
the individual permits.

The Woomera Prohibited Areas (e.g. way 436098551) again are
not 'owned' by the authority.
These areas have both the rocket range and proper

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Greg Troxel]

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 landowner requires permission for access, but
> has a policy that grants access to members of the public provided
> that certain formalities are observed.
>
> Ordinarily this tag will be accompanied by an 'operator=*' tag and
> one or more tags giving contact information (phone=*, fax=*,
> email=*, etc.) and/or an address in the Karlsruhe schema. If the
> contact information for the person or agency that administers
> permission is different from the main contact for a location, way
> or area, or if the address of the permitting person or agency is
> not the physical address of the site, then the tags may be
> prefixed with 'permit:': that is, permit:phone=*, permit::fax=*,
> permit:email=*,permit:addr:*=*, etc.

I would like to strongly support this notion, and I really do not
understand why it is controversial.  There is a huge difference between
"generally one cannot" and "generally one can, after enduring minor
[paperwork'.

If it turns out that the overwhelming majority of people think that
permit is almost like private, little harm will have been done.  If it
turns out to be useful, we will have gained something.


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