Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Kevin Kenny]

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 access is
> possible. this would allow to tag in the same way a road leading to a
> lake belonging to a sports club as the road leading to a nature reserve
> that would need a "permit".
>

fee=yes is a total non-issue. In fact, no place that I've tagged
access=permit
requires a fee. For the specific case of urban parking, which is one case
that I do use navigation systems for, I already offered to distinguish
access=permit (which must be obtained in advance) from fee=yes (pay
on the spot).

You seem to have a view that the permits are receipts for
fees paid, and that purpose of the tag is solely to inform
routing and navigation engines. Neither is true. In fact, the
areas that I've tagged with 'permit' have been to clarify the question:
"May I hike here?" And I don't refer to trails: off-trail hiking is widely
practiced here and is often condoned by the authorities.

And what you see as 'slalom', I see as 'trying to come up with an accurate
definition, excluding a number of straw men that have been erected against
the proposal.' That appears to require discussing every other form of
access tag and distinguishing them from what is proposed, since several
users have insisted that there is no difference between 'permit' and
various other tags or simply attacked the proposal for vagueness.
I don't see any way to be adequately definite without exploring
all the boundaries.

You leave me on Morton's Fork: either the proposal is too vague to
support, or it's too complex to support.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[marc marc]

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 belonging to a sports club as the road leading to a nature reserve 
that would need a "permit".
a tag like access=private + access:conditional=permit.
for app and routing that doesn't understand "permit" or for people that 
doesn't have the correct permit, it work like right now
for the few % that have the permit, it allow to use this info (and maybe 
it need a tag with the permit name, to check if the user is allowed or 
not to use it)

Le 21. 09. 17 à 20:09, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
> 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?
> ===
> 
> The lines between different sorts of access=* are always going to be
> slightly blurred at the margins, because it's a human system we're
> dealing with. Nevertheless, there are a few common themes here.
> 
> access=permit generally indicates "permission must be obtained in
> advance, but permission is ordinarily available to the general
> public."
> 
> The situations where it seems to be a recurring motif are access
> to quasi-private roads, trails, parcels of land, and access to urban
> parking. (There are also the ridiculous straw-men that people are
> raising - countries that require visas for entry, the fact that a
> driving license is required to drive on public roads, the fact that
> some places require a doctor's certification for access to facilities
> for the disabled. I ignore those for now.)
> 
> For both of these, key aspects are (1) that permission must be
> obtained in advance, often at a different location; (2) the permission
> is truly for public access to the facility, rather than the public
> access being a benefit of some other affiliation, or being incidental
> to another service.
> 
> URBAN PARKING:  If it's simply "you must pay to park", it's
> 'fee=yes'. That carries the expectation that if you show up at the
> facility and it's not full, you can pay your money and park there. By
> contrast, 'access=permit' is, "you must contract with the facility in
> advance to be allowed to park there." When I lived in a larger city,
> there were many parking lots that were publicly owned but required a
> municipal permit to park in them. It was easier for the city to
> administer than having attendants and/or parking meters at each
> one. Many "park and ride" commuter lots were administered in this way.
> 
> ROADS: I could imagine roads that are administered in the same way,
> but around here I can't cite an example. (Even our roads that have
> automated toll collection with a transponder have either a handful of
> manual toll booths for visitors, or can assess the toll by means of a
> license plate camera and bill the vehicle owner.) But it's certainly
> possible to imagine a road whose use is by subscription only, and I'm
> sure that such a beast exists somewhere in this varied world. Ordinary
> toll roads are 'toll=*'. You show up, pay your money and go, with no
> advance formalities.
> 
> I'm not sure about "low emission vehicle". I see it as being more
> analogous to "heavy goods vehicle", "high occupancy vehicle",
> "motorcycle",  a vehicle type that the existing schema could
> accommodate. It's an attribute of the vehicle (perhaps attested to by
> a certificate or medallion), rather than a permission.
> 
> OUTDOOR FACILITIES: Here the difference is fairly clear in my mind,
> but there is room for judgment at the corners.
> 
> I would exclude sports clubs, country clubs, summer camps, ski
> resorts, and such facilities that provide access to members only from
> 'access=permit'. A membership in such an organization provides other
> services than simple access to the land: often food, lodging, changing
> rooms and showers, warming huts, ski lift services, and similar
> ancillary services are bundled in the fee, or conditioned on paying it
> as well as paying extra for the service. For several of the ski
> resorts around here, I would nevertheless add 'foot=permit' or
> 'foot=permissive', because they have a policy of either out-and-out
> allowing the public to access their grounds (provided that they do not
> intrude on pistes, or out of season), or to access their grounds with
> prior permission. That is a permit merely to access the lands, rather
> than a membership or fee for services in which the land access is one
> of an array of benefits. Other than that sort of exception, these
> facilities are "access=private."
> 
> I would also exclude those facilities that condition access 

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Kevin Kenny]

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?
===

The lines between different sorts of access=* are always going to be
slightly blurred at the margins, because it's a human system we're
dealing with. Nevertheless, there are a few common themes here.

access=permit generally indicates "permission must be obtained in
advance, but permission is ordinarily available to the general
public."

The situations where it seems to be a recurring motif are access
to quasi-private roads, trails, parcels of land, and access to urban
parking. (There are also the ridiculous straw-men that people are
raising - countries that require visas for entry, the fact that a
driving license is required to drive on public roads, the fact that
some places require a doctor's certification for access to facilities
for the disabled. I ignore those for now.)

For both of these, key aspects are (1) that permission must be
obtained in advance, often at a different location; (2) the permission
is truly for public access to the facility, rather than the public
access being a benefit of some other affiliation, or being incidental
to another service.

URBAN PARKING:  If it's simply "you must pay to park", it's
'fee=yes'. That carries the expectation that if you show up at the
facility and it's not full, you can pay your money and park there. By
contrast, 'access=permit' is, "you must contract with the facility in
advance to be allowed to park there." When I lived in a larger city,
there were many parking lots that were publicly owned but required a
municipal permit to park in them. It was easier for the city to
administer than having attendants and/or parking meters at each
one. Many "park and ride" commuter lots were administered in this way.

ROADS: I could imagine roads that are administered in the same way,
but around here I can't cite an example. (Even our roads that have
automated toll collection with a transponder have either a handful of
manual toll booths for visitors, or can assess the toll by means of a
license plate camera and bill the vehicle owner.) But it's certainly
possible to imagine a road whose use is by subscription only, and I'm
sure that such a beast exists somewhere in this varied world. Ordinary
toll roads are 'toll=*'. You show up, pay your money and go, with no
advance formalities.

I'm not sure about "low emission vehicle". I see it as being more
analogous to "heavy goods vehicle", "high occupancy vehicle",
"motorcycle",  a vehicle type that the existing schema could
accommodate. It's an attribute of the vehicle (perhaps attested to by
a certificate or medallion), rather than a permission.

OUTDOOR FACILITIES: Here the difference is fairly clear in my mind,
but there is room for judgment at the corners.

I would exclude sports clubs, country clubs, summer camps, ski
resorts, and such facilities that provide access to members only from
'access=permit'. A membership in such an organization provides other
services than simple access to the land: often food, lodging, changing
rooms and showers, warming huts, ski lift services, and similar
ancillary services are bundled in the fee, or conditioned on paying it
as well as paying extra for the service. For several of the ski
resorts around here, I would nevertheless add 'foot=permit' or
'foot=permissive', because they have a policy of either out-and-out
allowing the public to access their grounds (provided that they do not
intrude on pistes, or out of season), or to access their grounds with
prior permission. That is a permit merely to access the lands, rather
than a membership or fee for services in which the land access is one
of an array of benefits. Other than that sort of exception, these
facilities are "access=private."

I would also exclude those facilities that condition access to being a
member of a particular group, for instance, a parishioner of a
particular church, a member of a particular profession, or a citizen
of a particular dependent nation (e.g. Native American
reservations). These, too, are 'access=private'.

Facilities that offer 'day memberships' are in a grey area, but I'd
tend toward 'access=private' or 'access=fee' mostly depending on
whether the permission must be purchased in advance or is available on
arrival. Still, I wouldn't raise a stink if someone else were to
decide that such a facility is 'access=permit'.

Conditions required by local law that are not specifically bound to
the facilities in question are entirely out of scope. The fact that I
would need a state hunting license, an appropriate firearm
registration, and a bear tag to hunt bear on a particular preserve, as
well as having access to the land, is not something that I propose to
map. All the state and local 

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Dave Swarthout]

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 sportsmen could know ahead of time that some
sort of permission was needed before using the resource. It turns out that
hunting and wood cutting are also allowed on this military reservation and
for these activities too, a permit is required. The "permission" usually
takes the physical form of a document one must possess when using the
resource. Such permits are often only a formality, as it is in this case,
and are available to the general public. Other times some money must be
paid. In the end, one receives some sort of document, a permission document
(aka permit) that allows them access to the pond or woodlot.

Now, I hope I'm not complicating this whole question by stating that one
also needs a State of Alaska fishing license before being allowed to fish
in these ponds. In one sense this is also permission document but one that
applies to the entire state of Alaska. However, such a license does not
apply to any particular pond. Rather, it applies to all the ponds and
waters in the entire state and that, to my mind at least, is what
distinguishes the two permissions. The permit I'm talking about is merely
an access permission.

Perhaps that might be where some of the confusion is coming from. I hope I
haven't muddied the waters too much by bringing that up.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
> 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 ("maxemission").
>>
>>
>> It is sometimes a condition that you are in possession of a document,
>> which has to be applied for, can be refused, and must be produced on
>> demand. For example the German Umweltplakette which you may be familiar
>> with. No sticker means no entry. You can get a ticket for "failing to
>> display a sticker." That passes the duck test for being a permit.
>>
>
>
> IMHO this is not a "permit", it is the documentation that your car
> fullfills the requirements. In Italy you have to expose a small piece of
> printed paper from your insurance company behind the windshield to document
> that you have paid car insurance. No sticker means you can get a ticket. Is
> a car insurance payment receipt a "permit"?
>
> Not every document you have to apply for is a "permit".
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 ("maxemission").
>
>
> It is sometimes a condition that you are in possession of a document,
> which has to be applied for, can be refused, and must be produced on
> demand. For example the German Umweltplakette which you may be familiar
> with. No sticker means no entry. You can get a ticket for "failing to
> display a sticker." That passes the duck test for being a permit.
>


IMHO this is not a "permit", it is the documentation that your car
fullfills the requirements. In Italy you have to expose a small piece of
printed paper from your insurance company behind the windshield to document
that you have paid car insurance. No sticker means you can get a ticket. Is
a car insurance payment receipt a "permit"?

Not every document you have to apply for is a "permit".

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

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Colin Smale]

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 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 ("maxemission").

It is sometimes a condition that you are in possession of a document,
which has to be applied for, can be refused, and must be produced on
demand. For example the German Umweltplakette which you may be familiar
with. No sticker means no entry. You can get a ticket for "failing to
display a sticker." That passes the duck test for being a permit. 

Other LEZs are enforced by number plate recognition linked to a big
database. In this case there is no permit, because you don't have to
apply for anything. 

And then there is London, which lets anybody in (except for trucks) but
charges a varying amount according to the vehicle. This is not a permit,
this is a toll or a usage charge.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Colin Smale]

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 all streets with motor_vehicle=permit because you
> need a driver license and a number plate for your car ?

A driving licence says nothing about where you are allowed to drive, nor
does a number plate. The absence or presence of these things has no
bearing on your "permission" or otherwise to use a particular street.
UNLESS there is a sign saying "no vehicles without number plates" or "no
unlicensed drivers"... 

In some places there are circumstances under which it is legal to drive
without a licence, and without number plates.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 vehicle) must satisfy certain conditions. Those are more
similar to maxweight or maxheight IMHO ("maxemission").

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

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 get, must be paid for, must be
> adjudicated before some governing body, or whether one has to jump up and
> down 3 times, is IMHO irrelevant. Moreover, whether such a permit takes
> the physical form of a document, a sticker, or a plastic embossed card, is
> also irrelevant.
>
> It merely means something special must be done before access is granted.
> Subsidiary tags can flesh out the details of how it is obtained, whether
> there's a fee involved, etc.
>



Maybe defining better at which cases you are aiming, could raise support
for the permit tag. I agree that some cases of "permits" are better tagged
as "private" because it is essentially the same situation, while others are
not well described with "private", because you can easily get a permit and
use the way as if it hadn't a restriction. Is "do something special"
involving a lot of time and or money to obtain, or can only some people
with special requisites apply (e.g. tribal, religious or professional
exceptions)? It might all be called "permit", but the effective situation
is very different.


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

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[joost schouppe]

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 nice if a definition of permit would not monopolize it for use
on trails only. Once this gets used, people will use it for more than just
that.

Second point is that while access=permit will solve a rendering issue, it
will not solve the current routing issue. Noone will change the value of a
road to motor_vehicle=permit right now, because routing will just be
allowed.

A solution where we start of with an extra, specialised tag could
documented as being synonymous with *=permit. Routers could implement this
first. Then, when they have done so, we can formalize *=permit and use our
special tag to find objects that should be migrated to the *=permit tagging
style.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Dave Swarthout]

>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 those extreme cases ?

There's always a risk that some mappers will do what you don't expect but
hopefully, in most cases, common sense will prevail. In the description
that eventually ends up in the Wiki, notes about proper usage with examples
of what to do and what not to do should be included.






On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:03 PM, 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 ?
> 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 those extreme cases ?
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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 by everybody meeting clearly defined, easy to
> comply
> > (e.g. filling out a form with your name and intended time of stay)
> criteria
> > (=you have a right, if the administration doesn't grant the permit
> > nonetheless you meet the requirements, you could sue them),
> >
> > 2) or is it typically given to "everybody", but if they decide you don't
> get
> > it you can't do anything.
> >
> > 3) Or is obtaining the permit linked to requisites which are found only
> in
> > very few people (e.g. living in an area).
> >
> >
> > The case 3 and maybe 2 could reasonably be approximated with private,
> while
> > the first and maybe second would merit a new tag IMHO (cases 1 and 2
> could
> > also have 2 tags: access=permit and another one stating whether you have
> a
> > right to get the permit). I'm not sure about case 2.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
> ___
> 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

[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 get, must be paid for, must be
adjudicated before some governing body, or whether one has to jump up and
down 3 times, is IMHO irrelevant. Moreover, whether such a permit takes the
physical form of a document, a sticker, or a plastic embossed card, is also
irrelevant.

It merely means something special must be done before access is granted.
Subsidiary tags can flesh out the details of how it is obtained, whether
there's a fee involved, etc.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
> 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 by everybody meeting clearly defined, easy to comply
> (e.g. filling out a form with your name and intended time of stay) criteria
> (=you have a right, if the administration doesn't grant the permit
> nonetheless you meet the requirements, you could sue them),
>
> 2) or is it typically given to "everybody", but if they decide you don't
> get it you can't do anything.
>
> 3) Or is obtaining the permit linked to requisites which are found only in
> very few people (e.g. living in an area).
>
>
> The case 3 and maybe 2 could reasonably be approximated with private,
> while the first and maybe second would merit a new tag IMHO (cases 1 and 2
> could also have 2 tags: access=permit and another one stating whether you
> have a right to get the permit). I'm not sure about case 2.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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

[Marc Gemis]

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 those extreme cases ?

regards

m.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
> 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 by everybody meeting clearly defined, easy to comply
> (e.g. filling out a form with your name and intended time of stay) criteria
> (=you have a right, if the administration doesn't grant the permit
> nonetheless you meet the requirements, you could sue them),
>
> 2) or is it typically given to "everybody", but if they decide you don't get
> it you can't do anything.
>
> 3) Or is obtaining the permit linked to requisites which are found only in
> very few people (e.g. living in an area).
>
>
> The case 3 and maybe 2 could reasonably be approximated with private, while
> the first and maybe second would merit a new tag IMHO (cases 1 and 2 could
> also have 2 tags: access=permit and another one stating whether you have a
> right to get the permit). I'm not sure about case 2.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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]

@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, etc., which people visit.

Examples of such objects are:

   - parking lots
   - service ways
   - entrances
   - toilets


Plus, by including the permit requirement in the description tag, I would
be willing to bet it's essentially invisible to other OSM mappers, routers,
etc.

The proposed new access=permit tag would be a good first step to resolve
this.



On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:20 PM, SwiftFast  wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 by everybody meeting clearly defined, easy to comply
(e.g. filling out a form with your name and intended time of stay) criteria
(=you have a right, if the administration doesn't grant the permit
nonetheless you meet the requirements, you could sue them),

2) or is it typically given to "everybody", but if they decide you don't
get it you can't do anything.

3) Or is obtaining the permit linked to requisites which are found only in
very few people (e.g. living in an area).


The case 3 and maybe 2 could reasonably be approximated with private, while
the first and maybe second would merit a new tag IMHO (cases 1 and 2 could
also have 2 tags: access=permit and another one stating whether you have a
right to get the permit). I'm not sure about case 2.

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

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Dave Swarthout]

@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.

That's almost exactly what I said. Anyone who wants to can use the tag,
REGARDLESS of whether it is "approved" by the members of this or any other
list. Hence my conclusion that the result of the voting is non-binding. The
voting process might be used to improve the tag or, in cases where it's
obviously wrong, discarded but our approval is not, strictly speaking,
essential.

We always strive for consensus but it cannot always be had. So...

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:01 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.
>
> 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 

[Tagging] Access by permit

[SwiftFast]

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

[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
>