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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-29 13:43 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny :

> I'm inclined to let the person who actually encounters such a beast
> propose the tagging for it.  Your idea seems as good as any,  but I've not
> yet seen an actual example.  The most I've seen is different hours, fees,
> and so on, with the same office administering permits. I don't want to brew
> up a lot of complexity addressing hypothetical cases.
>


IMHO for the mapper

foot=permit
permit:website=*


is at the same complexity level as

foot=permit
foot:website=*


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?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Jul 29, 2016 3:50 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" wrote:
> this tagging only works with one type of permit at a time, if
motor_vehicle=permit was also set (with different rules and phone numbers
etc.), you would need something like
> foot=permit
> motor_vehicle=permit
> foot:permit:website=*
> motor_vehicle:permit:website =*
> etc.
>
> or maybe shorter:
> foot:website =*

I'm inclined to let the person who actually encounters such a beast propose
the tagging for it.  Your idea seems as good as any,  but I've not yet seen
an actual example.  The most I've seen is different hours, fees, and so on,
with the same office administering permits. I don't want to brew up a lot
of complexity addressing hypothetical cases.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

On 7/29/2016 6:12 PM, Tijmen Stam wrote:



IMHO OSM is a geographical database, and there are some things that are
too detailed.


There are things in the OSM database that go well beyond geography ... opening 
hours, contact phone numbers for example.

I would not place limits on, nor discourage, what can be put in the data base 
simply because 'they are too detailed', 'not for OSM', etc.

Those who do inhibit themselves and OSM from a future of unseen uses and 
benefits.


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

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

[Tijmen Stam]

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 27 lug 2016, alle ore 21:01, Kevin Kenny
>>  ha scritto:
>>
>> foot=permit
>> permit:website=https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/wpres.htm
>> permit:phone=+1(209)372-0200
>
>
> this tagging only works with one type of permit at a time, if
> motor_vehicle=permit was also set (with different rules and phone numbers
> etc.), you would need something like
> foot=permit
> motor_vehicle=permit
> foot:permit:website=*
> motor_vehicle:permit:website =*
> etc.
>
> or maybe shorter:
> foot:website =*


This is like the discussion on where some buses on a certain line one
could pay with a contactless card, while on other buses one couldn't,
which affects the network tagging.

IMHO OSM is a geographical database, and there are some things that are
too detailed. Off course it's good to lay out a structure for this, but as
long as far more large-scale items are missing, I wouldn't put too much
energy into it.


___
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 27 lug 2016, alle ore 21:01, Kevin Kenny 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> foot=permit
> permit:website=https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/wpres.htm
> permit:phone=+1(209)372-0200


this tagging only works with one type of permit at a time, if 
motor_vehicle=permit was also set (with different rules and phone numbers 
etc.), you would need something like 
foot=permit
motor_vehicle=permit 
foot:permit:website=*
motor_vehicle:permit:website =*
etc.

or maybe shorter:
foot:website =*

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?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> yes, it fits well if you know what the situation is, but without
> documentation you don't know whether this is only supposed to be used for
> places where permits are generally granted, or if it is also used for
> places where you need very good reasons to ever get a permission to set
> your feet there (e.g. strict nature reserves where access is only granted
> to scientists).
>

That's a great point, and is the reason I asked about what the process is
for initiating a new tag (beyond just using it and possibly wikifying it).

What I'd propose informally:

access=permit

Access is allowed to the general public provided that certain formalities
are observed in advance. By distinction, access=private and access=no refer
to cases where access must actually be negotiated and justified on an
individual basis, or access is reserved to certain classes of people, for
example, residents, club members, members of a given profession, or
adherents of a given religion). The access=permit tag does not address the
method by which permits may be obtained. Permits may be available for the
asking, may require reservation of a specific date, be awarded by lottery,
require payment of a fee, and so on.

At a minimum, access=permit should be paired with some sort of contact
where further information may be maintained. This may or may not be the
main contact associated with a feature. If it is a secondary contact, it
should be identified with permit:website=*, permit:phone=*, permit::fax=*,
permit:email=*, etc. If a fee is charged for the permit, the tagging may
include permit:fee=yes or permit:fee= .

Examples:

foot=permit
website=http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/recreation/index.shtml
permit:website=http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/recreation/access.shtml
 New York City-owned watershed lands on which foot traffic is permitted
on condition of agreeing to terms and conditions and securing a permit.
(Permits are granted pretty much automatically on request.)

foot=permit
permit:website=https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/wpres.htm
permit:phone=+1(209)372-0200
Yosemite National Park. Permits are on a lottery system, and only a few
per cent of requests are granted. Nevertheless, the access is not limited
to specific classes of people.

foot=permit
permit:website=http://frostvalley.org/about-us/outdoor-sporting-memberships/
permit:phone=+1(845) 985-2291 ext. 217
permit:email=naturalresour...@frostvalley.org
permit:fee=55 USD per annum
An example of a privately-owned camp that offers for-fee access to
members of the general public. The fee listed is the lowest fee without
invoking discounts for children, senior citizens, or local residents, or
surcharges for hunters and fishermen. The permit also requires a criminal
background check, which is disclosed on the website.

foot=permit
permit:website=
https://govt.westlaw.com/nycrr/Document/I21eeaefec22211ddb7c8fb397c5bd26b?viewType=FullText=documenttoc=CategoryPageItem=%28sc.Default%29
The Eastern Zone of the High Peaks Wilderness Area requires a
self-issuing permit, obtainable at trailheads in that zone and at ranger
stations. (Acquiring the permit consists of filling out a carbon-paper
form, dropping the top copy in the letter box and taking the bottom copy
with you.)


Encoding all the endless variations on the theme is Out Of Scope: they can
be incorporated by reference using the contact information. The key is that
the landowner has a uniform policy allowing access by the general public as
long as formalities are observed, rather than restricting access to
particular classes of people. I do not envision using access=permit to
document "strict nature reserve accessible only to scientists", "monastic
community accessible only to certain male members of the Eastern churches",
"country club accessible only to members", "gated community accessible only
to residents," or even "the farmer's pretty friendly and will likely let
you cross his land if you ask politely."

For me, the boundary case would probably be New York's ASK program
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/askperm.pdf - where a landowner can
voluntarily post contact information and indicate that permission may be
granted to strangers. There's a standard permission card that the state
provides http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/ask.pdf . Since the
landowner can still refuse permission for any reason or no reason, I'd
incline toward access=private, but most landowners that participate in the
program are delighted to have responsible visitors who monitor their
property for hazardous conditions, poachers, vandalism and encroachments.
The visitors that ask permission are likely also to clean up other people's
litter, clear deadfall from paths, and otherwise help the landowner keep
the land in good condition. Most landowners wouldn't participate if they
weren't prepared to welcome visitors, so I'd be even happier 

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-27 10:54 GMT+02:00 moltonel :

> I went  with access=permit at the time: it seemed to fit very well,
> without needing a big discussion thread :p
>


yes, it fits well if you know what the situation is, but without
documentation you don't know whether this is only supposed to be used for
places where permits are generally granted, or if it is also used for
places where you need very good reasons to ever get a permission to set
your feet there (e.g. strict nature reserves where access is only granted
to scientists).

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?

[moltonel]

On 21 July 2016 12:31:42 GMT+01:00, m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:
>
>In my view access=permit seems like they way to go. Having
>access=private with permit=something adds to the complexity without
>adding value. Keep it simple.

Joining this discussion late, but just as another datapoint, this usecase 
(permit required but routinely granted) matches one I mapped a while ago: a 
pilgrim path in Ireland that goes in part through private land. You need to 
apply for permit at the local abbey (no online form available). I went  with 
access=permit at the time: it seemed to fit very well, without needing a big 
discussion thread :p

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1969406

-- 
Vincent Dp

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

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

[me]

In my view access=permit seems like they way to go. Having
access=private with permit=something adds to the complexity without
adding value. Keep it simple.


On 19/07/16 at 09:54pm, Colin Smale wrote:
> 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.

It worth noting that the Situation in different parts of the UK varies,
I think you mean England and Wales above. In Scotland, we have the right
to access all land unless it’s around a private house or building. This
means that outside of populated area any path is accessible, even if you
have to climb over a gate of fence.

Cheers
Chris


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

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

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 20 lug 2016, alle ore 15:06, Greg Troxel  ha 
>> scritto:
>> 
>> There
>> are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
>> That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
>> rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
>> reasonable times.
>
>
> unless of course you look like a homeless person or are pursuing some
> kind of political campaign or are asking people for money etc. Really
> in these private pseudo public spaces the owner can expel people at
> will for no reason or any reason.

True, except that they can't expel them for an unlawful reason :-)

But in all seriousness, these usually do not have access tags, and
that is not an actual problem.

I realize this is blurring rendering, but I see annotations on
access=private/no (which is good), and on access=permissive (which is
fine, for things that truly fit permissive).  But putting the permissive
icon on shopping mall ways would not serve the map users well.  So I
really just meant that 'pseudo-public' as you call it, which is a good
term, is another case that's between access=yes and access=permissive.

Something like
access=public_welcome_if_you_arent_doing_something_usually_objectionable_on_pseudopublic_land

but at least a little less verbose.


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 20 lug 2016, alle ore 15:06, Greg Troxel  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> There
> are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
> That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
> rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
> reasonable times.


unless of course you look like a homeless person or are pursuing some kind of 
political campaign or are asking people for money etc. Really in these private 
pseudo public spaces the owner can expel people at will for no reason or any 
reason.


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?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Il giorno 20 lug 2016, alle ore 15:06, Greg Troxel  ha scritto:

>> 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.
> 
> You have said "private property", but that's not really the right
> sense.   I think you mean "any property which is not by law open to all
> people, such as a public right of way".
> 
> A military base in the US would not be considered "private property", as
> it's ownedby the federal government, but you need permission.


I think he's referring to a particular country. As a counterexample, in Germany 
as a pedestrian you have the right to access all land (outside of settlements) 
e.g. forests, farmland, meadows etc., unless it is fenced (what fortunately is 
rarely the case) or you would risk harming the crop.


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?

[Greg Troxel]

Colin Smale  writes:

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

The notion that all places that need permission are equivalent is
technically true in a non-useful way.

> 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. 

You have said "private property", but that's not really the right
sense.   I think you mean "any property which is not by law open to all
people, such as a public right of way".

A military base in the US would not be considered "private property", as
it's ownedby the federal government, but you need 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. 

The point that I and Kenny made on imports is that there are two very
different situations:

  private, and really there is no expectation that some random person
  can easily/reasonably get permission or that it's reasonable to ask

  a permit system, where it's controlled somehow, but really you can go
  there after you follow the rules, and there's an expectation that
  permits will be issued to those who ask

This is essentially splitting what you are wanting to call private into
private and permit.  In terms of planning/etc., the notion that
permission will be granted after some application formality is entirely
different from a place where there is no expectation that permission
would be granted absent some pre-existing relationship.   I see this as
a first-class top-level distinction, partly because I don't see the
world through the UK lens of "public right of way vs evertyhing else".

Also, state parks that charge admission in your view should be labeled
access=private; paying for a park pass and filling out a permit
application are more or less the same thing.

Also, we aren't being consistent with such a strict definition.  There
are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
reasonable times.  So technically they should perhaps be permissive, but
really that does not match.  Arguably we should have
access=public_invited, which is subtly different from yes in that there
is no legal right.  But I think leaving them untagged (and thus yes) is
just fine and it's a problem that doesn't need addressing.


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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?

[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

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

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

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