Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[José G Moya Y .]

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.

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 property owners.
>> The range operators have provided the property owners with shelters -
>>  most of the property owners use the shelters as cool places to shelter
>> from the heat (as well as rockets).
>> Here I would hope that people wanting access would negotiate with both
>> the permit system and the private property owner.
>> The permit system ensures that travellers are not present when the
>> rockets are being fired.
>>
>> 
>> There is enough difference that it should be tagged together with the way
>> that permits can be obtained.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Warin]

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 property owners.
The range operators have provided the property owners with shelters -
 most of the property owners use the shelters as cool places to
shelter from the heat (as well as rockets).
Here I would hope that people wanting access would negotiate with
both the permit system and the private property owner.
The permit system ensures that travellers are not present when the
rockets are being fired.


There is enough difference that it should be tagged together with
the way that permits can be obtained.




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





--
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



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

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Dave Swarthout]

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.

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 property owners.
> The range operators have provided the property owners with shelters -
>  most of the property owners use the shelters as cool places to shelter
> from the heat (as well as rockets).
> Here I would hope that people wanting access would negotiate with both the
> permit system and the private property owner.
> The permit system ensures that travellers are not present when the rockets
> are being fired.
>
> 
> There is enough difference that it should be tagged together with the way
> that permits can be obtained.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
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] Access by permit

[Warin]

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 property owners.
The range operators have provided the property owners with shelters -
 most of the property owners use the shelters as cool places to shelter from 
the heat (as well as rockets).
Here I would hope that people wanting access would negotiate with both the 
permit system and the private property owner.
The permit system ensures that travellers are not present when the rockets are 
being fired.


There is enough difference that it should be tagged together with the way that 
permits can be obtained.
 

  



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

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Wolfgang Zenker]

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 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.

> At least in some locales, 'permit' is distinguished from 'private'
> in that 'private' areas are at best unknown and at worst allow access
> only to parties with a prior business relationship with the landowner.
> The fact that there is some formal process for obtaining permission
> is useful information at the early stages of trip planning. It is
> distinguished from 'yes' in that one cannot simply arrive at the
> site and expect to access it. Grouping it under 'yes' violates
> the cultural assumptions of at least a significant set of OSM users,
> and grouping it under 'no/private' does the same.

> If details of permit administration are observable on the ground, we
> can work out ways to map them. In the common situation that I have
> observed around me (and I've seen it with properties belonging to New
> York State, several municipal governments, Nature Conservancy, Open
> Space Institute, and several private conservancies), the common
> phrasing on signs is: 'Access by permit only. For information contact:
> [...]' (as opposed to the 'POSTED: No Trespassing' that denotes
> access=private). Since what is ordinarily visible on the ground is the
> signage forbidding unpermitted access (but implying that permission is
> routinely granted), that's the information that I propose to map.
> Since ordinarily I do NOT see details of the permit regime in the
> field, I do not propose any sort of schema for permit administration
> at the present time.

> Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate?

I agree with both the suggested tagging as well as the rationale for
the proposed tagging.

> It would meet my needs for trail mapping. (On some maps, I'd wind up
> further dividing by 'operator' because, for instance, New York City
> access rules are already familiar to most of the intended users. But
> how I choose to render is between me and my users.)

> If it appears acceptable, I'll update the Wiki page and post a summary
> on the 'talk' page.

Please do so.

> Beyond that, this is the first proposal I've made here that seems
> to have enough traction to go forward. Can someone help me with
> the formalities for the voting process, assuming that we've achieved
> a rough consensus? I've not done that before.

Sorry, I have no clue about the voting process here beyond having voted
myself a few times.

Wolfgang

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

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[marc marc]

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.

 > If it appears acceptable, I'll update the Wiki page
unless I am mistaken, since this type of proposal has been rejected 
twice, you are going too fast thinking that there is a consensus.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Erkin Alp Güney]

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 to map them. In the common situation that I have
> observed around me (and I've seen it with properties belonging to New
> York State, several municipal governments, Nature Conservancy, Open
> Space Institute, and several private conservancies), the common
> phrasing on signs is: 'Access by permit only. For information contact:
> [...]' (as opposed to the 'POSTED: No Trespassing' that denotes
> access=private). Since what is ordinarily visible on the ground is the
> signage forbidding unpermitted access (but implying that permission is
> routinely granted), that's the information that I propose to map.
> Since ordinarily I do NOT see details of the permit regime in the
> field, I do not propose any sort of schema for permit administration
> at the present time.
>
> Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate?
Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp

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

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Kevin Kenny]

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.

At least in some locales, 'permit' is distinguished from 'private'
in that 'private' areas are at best unknown and at worst allow access
only to parties with a prior business relationship with the landowner.
The fact that there is some formal process for obtaining permission
is useful information at the early stages of trip planning. It is
distinguished from 'yes' in that one cannot simply arrive at the
site and expect to access it. Grouping it under 'yes' violates
the cultural assumptions of at least a significant set of OSM users,
and grouping it under 'no/private' does the same.

If details of permit administration are observable on the ground, we
can work out ways to map them. In the common situation that I have
observed around me (and I've seen it with properties belonging to New
York State, several municipal governments, Nature Conservancy, Open
Space Institute, and several private conservancies), the common
phrasing on signs is: 'Access by permit only. For information contact:
[...]' (as opposed to the 'POSTED: No Trespassing' that denotes
access=private). Since what is ordinarily visible on the ground is the
signage forbidding unpermitted access (but implying that permission is
routinely granted), that's the information that I propose to map.
Since ordinarily I do NOT see details of the permit regime in the
field, I do not propose any sort of schema for permit administration
at the present time.

Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate?

It would meet my needs for trail mapping. (On some maps, I'd wind up
further dividing by 'operator' because, for instance, New York City
access rules are already familiar to most of the intended users. But
how I choose to render is between me and my users.)

If it appears acceptable, I'll update the Wiki page and post a summary
on the 'talk' page.

Beyond that, this is the first proposal I've made here that seems
to have enough traction to go forward. Can someone help me with
the formalities for the voting process, assuming that we've achieved
a rough consensus? I've not done that before.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: logo tag. Opinions?

[Marc Gemis]

>
> If that interpretation is correct, there would have to be a Wikipedia
> article, Commons page (not just a related image), or similar entry in
> the Wikimedia ecosystem to meet the notability criteria.

I doubt it has to be in the Wikimedia ecosystem. People work hard to
get all paintings from some musea into the Wikidata, without creating
Wikimedia pages.
Only "link" is a reference to a museum catalogue.

regards

m

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: logo tag. Opinions?

[Tobias Knerr]

On 19.09.2017 23:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> AFAIK wikidata's notability requirements should not be an issue, because
> it is sufficient there is a link to a commons page [1] to comply.

> [1] https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability

The notability requirements specifically mention "sitelinks", though,
not just any link. My understanding is that, at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q38076 for example, only the link in the
"Other sites" section is a "sitelink" – the value of the "logo image"
property probably isn't.

If that interpretation is correct, there would have to be a Wikipedia
article, Commons page (not just a related image), or similar entry in
the Wikimedia ecosystem to meet the notability criteria.

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