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

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Filip Mleczek  wrote:
> How to describe whether it is left or the right bank of the river?
> Can I use riverbank=left/right?
> Or better will be riverbank:side=left/right?
>
> Water mile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_mile is waterway:kilometer?
>
> How to describe distance from the river?

isn't this information already available when you measure the distance
and position from the marker node to the way representing the river ?
OSM is a geographical database, and e.g. Postgis will allow you to do
certain queries based on the coordinates of the objects. There is no
need to explicitly add information like distance. You can compute this
from the coordinates of the objects
To determine left/right bank you will also need the direction of the
way representing the river.

Perhaps you need a relation with the marker and the river to indicate
that the marker is for that particular river. When there are many
rivers/streams/... in an area this might not be obvious without an
explicit relation containing both elements.

So, IMHO, you should not add tags for riverbank=left/right nor
waterway:kilometer.

regards

m

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

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

[Filip Mleczek]

Hello

I'm writing master thesis about high water marks in Cracow in Poland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark I have to put high water
marks to OSM.

What tags i should i use? In taginfo i only found one tag: flood_marker. It
is used only once. But term "flood mark" is not correct. It should by
called "high water mark", because this term is in International Glossary of
Hydrology.

My propositions discussed in OSM/PL forum:

Main:
high_water_mark=yes
flood_marker=yes

Location:
location=
=indoor (inside the building)
=outdoor (outside the building)
=wall (in the wall)

Mark height from the ground/floor:
height_water:height= [m]

Flood date:
flood_date=

Inscription in the mark (or part):
inscription=

History:
memorial:type= high_water_mark
memorial:type=plaque
historic=highwater_mark

Tourism:
tourism=attraction

How to describe whether it is left or the right bank of the river?
Can I use riverbank=left/right?
Or better will be riverbank:side=left/right?

Water mile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_mile is waterway:kilometer?

How to describe distance from the river?

Can you help me?

All the best.

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2016-07-19 22:01 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny :
>
>> The High Peaks Wilderness is a lot more like a public park than it is
>> like your driveway. Should it be access=private because on the way in, you
>> have to fill out a form and leave it in the letterbox at a place like
>> this
>> ?
>> Does that change fundamentally if you have to download a form like this
>>  from a
>> website, fill it out, print it, and have one copy on your car's dashboard
>> and one in your person?
>>
>
>
> Actually, in these two cases (self issued permit), I wouldn't even use the
> word "permit", its more a kind of notification system, because there's no
> way someone would/could reject your application, right? Still I agree it
> does make sense to add some tag(s) for this kind of procedure.
>
> In the other case you wrote about, where the operator limits accessibility
> to reduce the impact by visitors on the nature, the word "permit" seems to
> fit better.
>
> In all cases, I think it matters what you have to do / who you have to be
> in order to comply with the formalities. Is it something everybody can do,
> or does it require a special status (e.g. resident, citizenship) or
> function (police man, ranger, military, public administration, homeland
> security, fire department, etc.).
>

In the case of New York's permit-only areas (both NYS and NYC), it appears
that the only condition is that you're over 18. (Kids can travel on the
permit of an accompanying adult.) I run into a lot of Canadians in the
Adirondacks, and a lot of new Korean immigrants in the Catskills. (New York
City has some very active Korean hiking clubs.)

The language on the permits warns that they can be revoked for flagrant or
repeated violations. I haven't heard of this happening very often. Then
again, the permit holders seem to be a fairly well-behaved lot. The
revocation wouldn't really keep someone from registering again, but would
be another reason to throw the book at them if they reoffend. I have heard
of people who were permanently banned from the DEC lands after being
convicted for a raft of offenses related to squatting. They'd built a
hunting camp on state land, and the permanent ban applies to those of them
who didn't go to prison. The ones who fired on the party of rangers and
troopers who came to evict them will be in prison for a very long time.

One purpose of the permit system is to have the infrastructure in place in
case they need to begin limiting access, and to have a mailing list that
can be used to broadcast regulatory changes. The only things that I've
heard about that way have been the closures of parks or trails for
wildfires, hurricanes and avalanches. They keep making noises about
instituting a quota system for the High Peaks and possibly the West Canada
Lakes, but nothing ever seems to come of it.

In a lot of the other permit-only parks in the US, the procedures are
fundamentally the same except that in addition to registering, you have to
reserve a date on the web site, and sometimes pay a nominal fee (which
barely covers the cost of administering the permit system). It's still open
to all comers, there just has to be a slot available on your date of
travel. For some immensely popular trips (the John Muir Trail through
Yosemite, rafting on the Grand Canyon) there's a lottery system in place,
because some people will be turned away in any given year. For most other
areas, it's just "plan in advance and coordinate your dates".

Most of the permit systems require a given date of arrival and a given
first night's campsite. Given the vagaries of backcountry travel, they are
flexible about subsequent campsites and exit dates. I've finished trips a
day early or a day late and made unplanned detours without any particular
hassle, even when my permit was checked.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Mikael Nordfeldth  wrote:
> 
> On 2016-07-19 22:38, Tod Fitch wrote:
>> A map for hiking is greatly enhanced by letting its users know, in advance 
>> of arriving at the trail head, that there are permits required. Even better 
>> if those permits can’t be self-issued at the trail head. The only way to let 
>> the end user know about this is to map it and to map it some sort of tagging 
>> must be used. Current accepted tagging is insufficient.
> 
> I absolutely think that the tag access=private intuitively sounds like
> you're not allowed to go there. But the description on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states that it's "Only
> with permission of the owner on an individual basis" which is exactly
> how I would interpret "access=permit" as well.
> 
> Given that description however, you are not given information about
> _how_ to get that permit, if possible. So something like a 'permit' key
> would be very useful here! Apparently there was some relation tag
> suggested in 2010:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:permit
> 
> There has obviously also been discussion on access=license (or licence)
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/License
> 
> 
> From the top of my head I would use something pointing to a URL:
> * access:url=
> * foot:url=
> * foot:permit:url=
> * permit=
> * permit:url=
> 
> or maybe access:description (foot:description etc.) for a direct
> human-readable text.
> 
> Tod: Is there any proposal like this out there. Is the above along the
> lines of how you're thinking we could extend the current tagging scheme?

I do not have a specific scheme in mind and am not aware of previous proposals. 
My point was to agree with the originator of this thread that the existing 
tagging conventions seem inadequate.

To me requiring a permit, as opposed to simple permission, implies some sort of 
formal paperwork and documentation.

Were I to stop at a ranch house and ask for permission to cross their range 
land it seems very unlikely that they’d have a standardized form and procedures 
to follow. I’d either be told to get the heck off their land or they’d say 
“sure, but close the gates behind you so the cattle won’t stray”.

When I get a hiking or camping permit from, say, the US Forest Service it is 
usually at a “ranger station” with formal procedures to follow and generally a 
required discussion on current restrictions (no fires, closed areas, etc.) in 
effect. Also, the forest service office that I need to get a permit from might 
be many miles away from the trail head. In extreme cases, like the Mt. Whitney 
trail, I might need to submit an application for a permit long in advance where 
the winners who are actually issued permits selected months in advance via a 
random drawing.

Basically very different experiences. It seems we ought to be able to indicate 
that some way. “access=permit” seems the clearest and shortest for the instance 
of hiking. But maybe something like “access=private”, “permit=yes”, 
“permit:url=” would work.

In the crowded beach resort city that I currently live in any resident can get 
a permit to park for free in the otherwise expensive pay parking near the 
beaches. This permit needs to be displayed in the car for which it was issued 
in order to avoid being fined. Should an attempt be made to cover all instances 
where a formal permit is required? Or let this grow organically where parking 
permits, vehicle entry permits, etc. are all handled differently. This organic 
growth of tagging seems to have been the general history of OSM.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How can I display maxspeed on my Garmin?

[Dave Swarthout]

Hi,

Hello,

I posted this on the Garmin OSM forum but nobody responded. Maybe someone
here can help with this.

I recently added maxspeed to many highways in my neighborhood and am
looking for a way to have them display on my Garmin Montana. Mostly I would
use this information while driving here and there to show me roads that
don't have a maxspeed tag already. I'm looking for a style directive that
will append maxspeed information to the highway-symbol and ref for the
standard highway types.

I have these lines in my lines style currently:

highway=trunk {name '${ref|highway-symbol:hbox} ${name}' |
'${ref|highway-symbol:hbox}' | '${name}'; addlabel '${ref} (${name})' }
highway=primary {name '${ref|highway-symbol:box} ${name}' |
'${ref|highway-symbol:box}' | '${name}'; addlabel '${ref} (${name})' }
highway=secondary | highway=tertiary {name '${ref|highway-symbol:oval}
${name}' | '${ref|highway-symbol:oval}' | '${name}'; addlabel '${ref}
(${name})' }
highway=* {name '${name}' | '${ref}' }

I tried echotags to see if my code works but it shows only the tags on the
object, not any that were created by directives like the ones above. Here
is one of my attempts to modify the directive by adding in a maxspeed value
for highway=primary:

highway=primary {echotags 'primary hwy'; name '${ref|highway-symbol:hbox}
${name} (${maxspeed})' | '${ref|highway-symbol:box} ${name}' |
'${ref|highway-symbol:box}' | '${name}'; addlabel '${ref} (${name})' }

Can anyone help?

Dave
-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
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]

2016-07-20 1:08 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> in Italy, things are often not "clearly signposted", in the case I had in
> mind, the situation is this



I've looked this up to see what the actual situation is, and it's almost
funny how complicated it is, at least formally. These are maybe the
relevant documents [0]:

http://www.comune.montepulciano.siena.it/on-line/Home/documento1826727.html
http://www.comune.montepulciano.siena.it/on-line/Home/documento1826747.html
(amendment)

The first document lists 5 different zones - even if the place is really
small [1] - and is full of classes and exceptions for authorized people,
the document describes 22 classes with their special conditions and permits
and rights, and if you look more detailed, you can see that the first class
already consists of several subclasses (like residents, home owners, owners
of residential buildings or parkings which are not rented to someone else,
people who would have the right for a permit but don't own a vehicle (in
this case you can assign the right to a third person who will then be able
to assist you) etc.).

Another example are hotel and B guests (permits for up to 80% of the
amount of rooms they have).

some other examples:
12) motorcars of relatives and other participants of weddings and baptisms
for up to 15 vehicles
13) participants of funeral processions
16) one car for each public agency/office
18) non profits if they have their registered office there and the car runs
on the name of the organization
...

after these classes there is the sentence: cases that don't fit into the
listed classes will be evaluated on a case by case basis by the local
police. ;-)

Cheers,
Martin

[0] if they haven't changed it again in the meantime, I've found it with a
searchengine on the website of the town, because their own search on the
website is broken and doesn't find anything, and the document is numbered
and not within some structure that would allow to look for more recent
versions [2]
[1] This is the town: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.0964/11.7888
[2]
http://www.comune.montepulciano.siena.it/on-line/Home/articolo1811320.html
___
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]

2016-07-19 22:01 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny :

> The High Peaks Wilderness is a lot more like a public park than it is like
> your driveway. Should it be access=private because on the way in, you have
> to fill out a form and leave it in the letterbox at a place like this
> ?
> Does that change fundamentally if you have to download a form like this
>  from a
> website, fill it out, print it, and have one copy on your car's dashboard
> and one in your person?
>


Actually, in these two cases (self issued permit), I wouldn't even use the
word "permit", its more a kind of notification system, because there's no
way someone would/could reject your application, right? Still I agree it
does make sense to add some tag(s) for this kind of procedure.

In the other case you wrote about, where the operator limits accessibility
to reduce the impact by visitors on the nature, the word "permit" seems to
fit better.

In all cases, I think it matters what you have to do / who you have to be
in order to comply with the formalities. Is it something everybody can do,
or does it require a special status (e.g. resident, citizenship) or
function (police man, ranger, military, public administration, homeland
security, fire department, etc.).

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power switching proposal

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

Here you can find some documentation about the switch=* key I find useful
to extend.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_switching_extension

This encourage mappers to describe power switches as they already can map
railway switches and pipeline valves.

RFC begins now and you are invited to give feedback or experiences on Talk:
page.

Examples are for now substation oriented and I'm waiting for knowledge
about railway catenary specific switches to open this category.
switch=* possible values aren't supposed to change.

All the best

François

--
*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 
___
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]

2016-07-19 21:54 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> Your Italian streets are not IMHO "public" in the sense of access (maybe
> they are in the sense of ownership).
>
You are not allowed in (with a motor vehicle), unless you have explicit
> permission, which may be granted to a certain class of vehicle. The
> semantics are exactly the same as for my back yard.
>


no, it's completely different than your backyard, it's a public road, just
that you need a permit to drive there, but you don't need it to walk there
or to ride your horse. Also, if you went there without a permit in your
car, it would be an offense and you'd have to pay a fine, but if I went
without permission onto your backyard it would be breach of domestic peace
(I think, actually I looked this one up).


If you haven't got permission, the way is closed for you. I assume that is
> clearly signposted. I am thinking of motor_vehicle=private,psv=yes,taxi=yes.
>


in Italy, things are often not "clearly signposted", in the case I had in
mind, the situation is this:
https://www.google.it/maps/place/53045+Montepulciano,+Siena/@43.0907961,11.77882,3a,51.4y,41.95h,86.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srNvDNz79rEaWWl7YVnhkzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x13295c04abeab307:0xcfbd667e662d3f92!8m2!3d43.0986938!4d11.7872467!6m1!1e1

don't let you fool by the main sign (it doesn't indicate a oneway road
here, this can also be seen 100 meters further at the next sign),
unfortunately google has blurred the additional sign, but I think it reads
something like "except authorized". I have asked locals how to get the
authorization, you have to apply, pay a fee, and get a permit for a year.

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?

[Mikael Nordfeldth]

On 2016-07-19 22:38, Tod Fitch wrote:
> A map for hiking is greatly enhanced by letting its users know, in advance of 
> arriving at the trail head, that there are permits required. Even better if 
> those permits can’t be self-issued at the trail head. The only way to let the 
> end user know about this is to map it and to map it some sort of tagging must 
> be used. Current accepted tagging is insufficient.

I absolutely think that the tag access=private intuitively sounds like
you're not allowed to go there. But the description on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states that it's "Only
with permission of the owner on an individual basis" which is exactly
how I would interpret "access=permit" as well.

Given that description however, you are not given information about
_how_ to get that permit, if possible. So something like a 'permit' key
would be very useful here! Apparently there was some relation tag
suggested in 2010:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:permit

There has obviously also been discussion on access=license (or licence)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/License


From the top of my head I would use something pointing to a URL:
* access:url=
* foot:url=
* foot:permit:url=
* permit=
* permit:url=

or maybe access:description (foot:description etc.) for a direct
human-readable text.

Tod: Is there any proposal like this out there. Is the above along the
lines of how you're thinking we could extend the current tagging scheme?

-- 
Mikael Nordfeldth
https://blog.mmn-o.se/
XMPP/mail: m...@hethane.se
OpenPGP Fingerprint: AE68 9813 0B7C FCE3 B2FA  727B C7CE 635B B52E 9B31



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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 - sent this message from the wrong mailbox and it either bounced or
got flagged for moderation.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Kenny 
Date: Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 


On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Your examples feel like private land to me. Except for the one with the
> bull...
>
> Maybe this would help me see the distinction:
>
> How much trouble are you in, if you enter without explicit permission? Are
> you (in theory at least) risking a fine? Would it be a criminal or
> statutory offence, or a civil wrong against the landowner? Or are there no
> sanctions? How likely are you to get caught? If a policeman challenges you
> for something, will they ask to see your permit?
>

The last set of examples represent the spectrum of how I interpret
'access=private' - and I'm entirely comfortable with having
'access=private' for all of them.

By contrast, the 'access=permit' is, "I have to stop at the kiosk on the
way by and fill out my registration card" or "I have to make sure to have
my New York City hiker card in my pack and hang the parking tag in my car"
(both of which are free, and on the first trip I needed them, I printed
them from the web site the night before).

If I'm in the High Peaks and encounter a ranger, he will indeed ask to see
my permit (and my bear canister). If I recall correctly from people who've
gotten caught, the fine is about $300 - the judge and prosecutor have some
discretion. The relevant regulation is here
.


But the real distinction is - once I've complied with all the formalities,
they have to give me permission. That's totally unlike a private landowner,
who can refuse permission for any reason or no reason. And the formalities
are minimal.

That distinction is important enough that most trail maps here show the two
types of regions differently: "government land, permission required",
rather than "private land, keep out". And on my own maps, I want to follow
that convention and render them differently.

Instead of trying to suggest a tagging scheme to allow me to do what I
want, you are asserting that I shouldn't want it. You're not helping me
come up with a way to tag these two situations differently, and I assure
you that they are very different to any American hiker. Instead, you are
asserting that they are the same, and I simply should not want there to be
a difference. That is not going to help me to move forward.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> Your examples feel like private land to me. Except for the one with the 
> bull...
> 
>  
> Maybe this would help me see the distinction:
>  
> How much trouble are you in, if you enter without explicit permission? Are 
> you (in theory at least) risking a fine? Would it be a criminal or statutory 
> offence, or a civil wrong against the landowner? Or are there no sanctions? 
> How likely are you to get caught? If a policeman challenges you for 
> something, will they ask to see your permit?
>  

It can vary with what part of the country you are in and who owns the land 
(federal, state, county, city, etc.). There are certainly places where you can 
get significant fines for not having a permit. There are others where the 
penalty is modest or non-existent. In my experience that often depends on if 
the permits are used for statistical and safety purposes (how many visitors, 
where someone reported missing might have gone) versus if there is a resource 
conservation reason (restricted number of permits to keep the usage low enough 
that the land is not too badly damaged). The likelihood of being caught depends 
greatly on the staffing, both paid and volunteer, available to the agency 
managing the land. I have been stopped on trails and asked to produce my 
permit, so I know it can happen.

And these are not considered private property: In most cases if an agency 
attempted to block all access (issue no permits) the public outcry would cause 
them to back down. It is public land, accessible to all, just not everyone at 
the same time so entrance permits are used to manage the flow.

A map for hiking is greatly enhanced by letting its users know, in advance of 
arriving at the trail head, that there are permits required. Even better if 
those permits can’t be self-issued at the trail head. The only way to let the 
end user know about this is to map it and to map it some sort of tagging must 
be used. Current accepted tagging is insufficient.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic 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?

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-07-19 22:01, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>>> Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale  
>>> ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are 
>>> loads of people with that explicit permission.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> that's also what I had written on the imports list, but I think it's maybe 
>> time to rethink this and evaluate if we shouldn't have more possibilities to 
>> differentiate. Surely it is a big difference between a totally private 
>> driveway or industrial site and government land where you need a permission 
>> but everybody will get it almost automatically?
>> 
>> Or another case again in some Italian towns: you need a permission to access 
>> with a motor vehicle, but you will only get it if you live there (still, 
>> these are not pedestrian like streets, they're more like normal roads, and 
>> besides residents psv, taxi and police, and public administration get 
>> permits).
>> 
>> Not everywhere is GB where current access restrictions seem to be sufficient 
>> for describing the situation.
> 
> Thanks, Martin, that's the point I'm trying to make, and it sounds as if I 
> may have convinced you!
> 
> The High Peaks Wilderness is a lot more like a public park than it is like 
> your driveway. Should it be access=private because on the way in, you have to 
> fill out a form and leave it in the letterbox at a place like this [1]? Does 
> that change fundamentally if you have to download a form like this [2] from a 
> website, fill it out, print it, and have one copy on your car's dashboard and 
> one in your person? That sort of regime: "it's open to the public, but you 
> have to ask for permission explicitly, which you'll always get if you're 
> following the rules" is common in backcountry areas of the United States. 
> 
> It's more a mandatory notification scheme than anything else: if I've picked 
> up a High Peaks permit, the rangers know who I am and what my plans are, so 
> they've got an idea where to look if I'm reported missing (which God 
> forbid!). In a few very stressed areas, they start limiting the number of 
> permits and using them for capacity management, but that's the exception, not 
> the rule. When you consider that on my last trip to the High Peaks, I was at 
> times over 30 km from the nearest road and spent four days before my first 
> supply stop, it's understandable that they want some sort of warning what 
> your plans are. Europe has very few places that are that remote.
> 
> It really still has the feel of 'public park with a few formalities.' It's 
> much more like 'public park' than any of the trips that I've done on private 
> land, where I've needed to ask politely, and answers have varied all over the 
> map:
> 
> - "Who the hell are you?" (from a farmer brandishing a shotgun) 
> - "Absolutely not!" 
> - "A day-use membership is $55/year for individuals and $65/year for 
> families" 
> - "Sure, go ahead, but make sure you pack out anything you pack in!" 
> - "Don't go on the south forty, I let the bull out of the barn and he don't 
> like strangers nohow." 
> - (At a small resort, where I was asking to cross their land to get to a 
> route") "So, am I bursting at the seams with paying guests that I can't let 
> you park? Please park over by the barn and don't block the driveways!"
> 
> Instead, I know exactly what to expect and know that permission will not be 
> refused for a trip that follows the rules.

Your examples feel like private land to me. Except for the one with the
bull... 

Maybe this would help me see the distinction: 

How much trouble are you in, if you enter without explicit permission?
Are you (in theory at least) risking a fine? Would it be a criminal or
statutory offence, or a civil wrong against the landowner? Or are there
no sanctions? How likely are you to get caught? If a policeman
challenges you for something, will they ask to see your permit? 

//colin 
  

Links:
--
[1]
https://fortysixupsanddowns.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/roaring-brook-trail-register.jpg
[2] http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf/newaccessprmt.pdf___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:
>> Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale 
ha scritto:
>>
>> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are
loads of people with that explicit permission.
>
>
>
> that's also what I had written on the imports list, but I think it's
maybe time to rethink this and evaluate if we shouldn't have more
possibilities to differentiate. Surely it is a big difference between a
totally private driveway or industrial site and government land where you
need a permission but everybody will get it almost automatically?
>
> Or another case again in some Italian towns: you need a permission to
access with a motor vehicle, but you will only get it if you live there
(still, these are not pedestrian like streets, they're more like normal
roads, and besides residents psv, taxi and police, and public
administration get permits).
>
> Not everywhere is GB where current access restrictions seem to be
sufficient for describing the situation.

Thanks, Martin, that's the point I'm trying to make, and it sounds as if I
may have convinced you!

The High Peaks Wilderness is a lot more like a public park than it is like
your driveway. Should it be access=private because on the way in, you have
to fill out a form and leave it in the letterbox at a place like this
?
Does that change fundamentally if you have to download a form like this
 from a website,
fill it out, print it, and have one copy on your car's dashboard and one in
your person? That sort of regime: "it's open to the public, but you have to
ask for permission explicitly, which you'll always get if you're following
the rules" is common in backcountry areas of the United States.

It's more a mandatory notification scheme than anything else: if I've
picked up a High Peaks permit, the rangers know who I am and what my plans
are, so they've got an idea where to look if I'm reported missing (which
God forbid!). In a few very stressed areas, they start limiting the number
of permits and using them for capacity management, but that's the
exception, not the rule. When you consider that on my last trip to the High
Peaks, I was at times over 30 km from the nearest road and spent four days
before my first supply stop, it's understandable that they want some sort
of warning what your plans are. Europe has very few places that are that
remote.

It really still has the feel of 'public park with a few formalities.' It's
much more like 'public park' than any of the trips that I've done on
private land, where I've needed to ask politely, and answers have varied
all over the map:

- "Who the hell are you?" (from a farmer brandishing a shotgun)
- "Absolutely not!"
- "A day-use membership is $55/year for individuals and $65/year for
families"
- "Sure, go ahead, but make sure you pack out anything you pack in!"
- "Don't go on the south forty, I let the bull out of the barn and he don't
like strangers nohow."
- (At a small resort, where I was asking to cross their land to get to a
route") "So, am I bursting at the seams with paying guests that I can't let
you park? Please park over by the barn and don't block the driveways!"

Instead, I know exactly what to expect and know that permission will not be
refused for a trip that follows the rules.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-07-19 21:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
>> Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale  
>> ha scritto:
>> 
>> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are 
>> loads of people with that explicit permission.
> 
> that's also what I had written on the imports list, but I think it's maybe 
> time to rethink this and evaluate if we shouldn't have more possibilities to 
> differentiate. Surely it is a big difference between a totally private 
> driveway or industrial site and government land where you need a permission 
> but everybody will get it almost automatically?
> 
> Or another case again in some Italian towns: you need a permission to access 
> with a motor vehicle, but you will only get it if you live there (still, 
> these are not pedestrian like streets, they're more like normal roads, and 
> besides residents psv, taxi and police, and public administration get 
> permits).
> 
> Not everywhere is GB where current access restrictions seem to be sufficient 
> for describing the situation.

Agreed. However the distinction in this case is simply a) where do I
apply for a permit and b) how likely am I to get one, i.e. how fussy is
the landowner. 

Your Italian streets are not IMHO "public" in the sense of access (maybe
they are in the sense of ownership). You are not allowed in (with a
motor vehicle), unless you have explicit permission, which may be
granted to a certain class of vehicle. The semantics are exactly the
same as for my back yard. If you haven't got permission, the way is
closed for you. I assume that is clearly signposted. I am thinking of
motor_vehicle=private,psv=yes,taxi=yes. Emergency doesn't need tagging
in my opinion - the emergency services will probably have legal
permission to ignore most restrictions if necessary anyway. I cannot
imagine an ambulance getting fined for not having a resident's permit
while saving someone's life. (On the other hand, there are some
incredible jobsworths about...) 

Maybe we can tag something about how to obtain permission:
permit:issuer=Town Council or similar. 

The situation in the UK is that you basically have an inalienable legal
right to pass over a public highway (but not to stop everywhere). The
landowner, whether that be an individual or the state, cannot deny you
access. Motorways are not a public highway - strictly, I think they
should be access=permissive. 

//colin___
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 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are loads 
> of people with that explicit permission.



that's also what I had written on the imports list, but I think it's maybe time 
to rethink this and evaluate if we shouldn't have more possibilities to 
differentiate. Surely it is a big difference between a totally private driveway 
or industrial site and government land where you need a permission but 
everybody will get it almost automatically?

Or another case again in some Italian towns: you need a permission to access 
with a motor vehicle, but you will only get it if you live there (still, these 
are not pedestrian like streets, they're more like normal roads, and besides 
residents psv, taxi and police, and public administration get permits).

Not everywhere is GB where current access restrictions seem to be sufficient 
for describing the situation.

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?

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-07-19 20:21, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> Gentlebeings,
> 
> In a discussion today on 'imports,' Martin Koppenhoefer raised a
> concern that appears to have no answer in current tagging practice. I
> suspect that it's yet another case where a fairly common case in the
> US violates a hidden cultural assumption in OSM's data model.
> 
> The case in question is government-owned lands that are open to the
> public but require a permit to access. In a great many cases the
> permits are free of charge and granted routinely to all who apply.
> 
> BACKGROUND
> 
> In my work, this first came up with an import I did this spring of the
> New York City watershed recreation land boundaries. These are not
> located in New York City. Rather, they are land in the Catskill
> Mountains and in the Croton watershed, purchased by New York City to
> protect its water supply from development. Many of these lands require
> a permit to access, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424230670 is
> typical. The permit is obtained simply by filling out a Web form,
> submitting it, and printing out the PDF that is sent back, so it's
> effectively never denied.
> 
> Someone on one of the lists proposed using the little-used
> 'access=permit' (or in this case, 'foot=permit') to tag this case.
> 'access=private' feels entirely wrong: it's not 'private land; keep
> out', but rather 'there are a few formalities to comply with.' I
> stated that agreed with 'access=permit', and the issue passed with
> little or no further comment.

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

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. 

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. 

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

Gentlebeings,

In a discussion today on 'imports,' Martin Koppenhoefer raised a
concern that appears to have no answer in current tagging practice. I
suspect that it's yet another case where a fairly common case in the
US violates a hidden cultural assumption in OSM's data model.

The case in question is government-owned lands that are open to the
public but require a permit to access. In a great many cases the
permits are free of charge and granted routinely to all who apply.

BACKGROUND

In my work, this first came up with an import I did this spring of the
New York City watershed recreation land boundaries. These are not
located in New York City. Rather, they are land in the Catskill
Mountains and in the Croton watershed, purchased by New York City to
protect its water supply from development. Many of these lands require
a permit to access, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424230670 is
typical. The permit is obtained simply by filling out a Web form,
submitting it, and printing out the PDF that is sent back, so it's
effectively never denied.

Someone on one of the lists proposed using the little-used
'access=permit' (or in this case, 'foot=permit') to tag this case.
'access=private' feels entirely wrong: it's not 'private land; keep
out', but rather 'there are a few formalities to comply with.' I
stated that agreed with 'access=permit', and the issue passed with
little or no further comment.

A side note: some of the permit-only areas give access only for the
purposes of hunting or fishing, and permit-holders must also hold a
valid sporting license from New York State and be present only in the
season for the game they're pursuing. I chose not to represent that
case in OSM, since the site from which the permit is obtained has
details.

THE CURRENT PROJECT

Now I'm working on a separate project - a reimport of the New York
State DEC Lands database. The last import was in 2009 and, in addition
to being out of date, was referenced to the wrong datum (WJS84 vs
NAD27) and had some topological problems (unclosed ways,
self-intersections, even multipolygons with inner ways misidentified
as outer and vice versa). That import has two more places with similar
permission regimes:

(1) The High Peaks Wilderness
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360488 . There is an extremely
simple permit regime there. Carbon-paper forms are available at the
trailheads if one enters on a trail (as nearly everyone does). You
simply fill one out, sign it, put the top copy in a letterbox on the
kiosk and take the bottom copy with you. Technically, this is required
only in the Eastern High Peaks Zone (east of the ridge that includes
Nye, Street and MacNaughton Mountains), but the boundary is indefinite
and very few hikers ever approach that ridge from the west.

(2) The Long Island DEC nature reserves (except for Ridge Conservation
Area) require a free permit, again obtained for free by filling out a
form on a web site.

I'm fine with 'access=yes' (or 'foot=yes') for the High Peaks; dealing
with the formailities does not require any advance planning on the
part of the traveller.. I proposed 'access=permit' for the Long Island
reserves, and that was when people challenged the idea.

REQUIREMENTS

My basic requirement is to discriminate between the three cases:
'private - keep out', 'permission needed' and 'no permission needed'.
I have various commercial trail maps that show the three cases with
distinct rendering. It's very useful in trip planing; "do I need to
remember to bring my NYC access card?" If any two of the three are
tagged alike, they cannot be rendered differently in maps that I
produce.

The last couple of times that I raised the argument that "things
tagged alike cannot be rendered differently," several people accused
me of "tagging for the renderer." That rather misses the point. I'm
entirely willing to adapt my rendering to whatever tagging scheme is
settled on. But things tagged alike cannot, even in principle, be
rendered differently, whatever renderer is used.

ALTERNATIVES

I favor 'access=permit' since it is succinct and expresses the
intention that a permit is required. 'access=private' does not convey
the idea that permission is routinely granted. 'access=permissive'
does not convey the fact that permission must be obtained. One
alternative that was suggested was 'access=no
foot:conditional=permissive @ permit_holder' - but that tagging is
surely not widely accepted. taginfo.openstreetmap.org turns up only a
handful of uses of 'permit_holder' in any cpntext, and they are not
consistent enough to establish that any of them is following accepted
practice. Moreover, there appears to be a formal syntax for the access
conditions that is incompletely specified. JOSM appears not to like
any specification that I've tried to enter.

Martin points out that this is a better forum than 'talk-us' or
'imports' for raising the issue. Do the people here have any better
idea how to proceed?

Thanks

Kevin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Education 2.0

[Tom Pfeifer]

Александр Шишкин wrote on 2016/07/17 15:36:

Proposal for more flexible and extensible tagging scheme for educational 
facilities.
The voting have been started.
You can vote for/against proposal and get familiar with it here 
.


I checked the discussion that was held on this list in April [1]
and found little of the concern that had been expressed being considered
in the version that has been put for voting now.

While usually I am in favour of a mild hierarchy in tagging, this proposal
fails for me to bring the expected structure, while creating confusion on
well established tags with high frequency.

The proposal tries to bring all aspects of education in an ontology
encoded with *:=yes key-only tags, which completely thwarts our key/value 
scheme,
and appears absurd to me.

It mixes hierarchical aspects with high-level duck tagging, such as proposing
education=school next to education=elementary_school and education=high_school,
and proposes education_level:*=yes which makes the previous fragmentation
redundant.

It proposes specialised replacements for information we already have generic
tags for, such as
- education_for:ages=16-48 instead of min_age and max_age
- education_fee=* instead of fee=*
- education_system:religious=yes instead of religion=*.

It mixes in elements that belong in to the leisure namespace, such as
karate dojos.

As a side effect, the proposal introduces a new amenity=daycare (not used so 
far)
for "non-educational" kindergarten, which is poorly defined since any child 
service
educates in some form, it is just more or less formalised; and daycare alone is
ambiguous since it could also refer to daycare of senior or handicapped people.

It will cause huge migration issues.

In general, while showing some good intent, the proposal is immature.

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-April/thread.html

tom

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