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 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 regulations regarding the possession of > arms and harvesting of wildlife must be complied with whether I'm on > state land, New York City watershed, a private preserve, or my > brother's back forty. (If I were to hunt, I'd favour my brother's back > forty, because I don't want to have to carry a deer out of most of > those other places. My brother can get his tractor pretty far into his > woods on his ATV trail.) > > So is there still a place after this for 'access=permit'? > > WHAT ACCESS=PERMIT MEANS > ======================== > > There are still significant cases that remain, even after excluding > all of these. They've been given in earlier messages in the > thread. They seem to share a common set of attributes. A permit must > be applied for in advance of a visit. The application process may be > easy and fast, or lengthy and difficult, but in any case applies to > the general public in a nondiscriminatory fashion (barring certain > exceptions such as "minors may not apply", "convicted felons may not > apply", with the exception groups all being groups who ordinarily are > expected to have diminished privileges). The permit is specifically > for access to the facility, rather than for a bundle of services to > which access is incidental. Often, permits are free of charge or > available at only a nominal administrative fee. (But see the > discussion of urban parking: I'm comfortable with the distinction that > 'access=fee' might mean "fee paid on arrival or departure" while > 'access=permit' would mean "access must be permitted in advance." > > One thing that is common to all the cases I've seen, be they parking, > restricted road, or outdoor facility, is that they are posted with > their permit requirements. (Ordinarily 'access by permit only' and > contact information.) If the posters have no contact information, that > tends toward 'access=private' - if the manager wanted permits to be > available to the general public, they'd ordinarily tell the public > where to inquire. This check (which is really a special case of > "visible on the ground") would eliminate most of the spurious things > that posters here have warned against. Nowhere have I seen posters > warning that a license is required to drive on the public highway! > > So the key facets seem to be. > > * Advance permission is required. (Generally speaking, one cannot > expect simply to arrive at the site and receive permission on the > spot.) > > * A policy is in place whereby the general public, rather than > members of a specified group, may apply for permission. (Among > other things, this alone would rule out border controls: the > citizens of a state ordinarily do not require permission to > enter or remain in their own state. It also rules out membership > clubs, affinity groups, dependent nation lands, ... which > are some other 'access=*', often 'private') > > * Permission is ordinarily certified by a paper statement, > card, vehicle tag, medallion, or other physical token. > > * The permission is specifically for access to the lands, ways or > other facilities. This eliminates things like 'day memberships' > that some clubs offer: those are for other services, and the > access to the land is incidental to the package. It also > eliminates documentation of things such as vehicle type or > disability that are attributes (which perhaps must be proven) > of the vehicle or of the person, rather than permissions. > > WHAT ACCESS=PERMIT DOES NOT MEAN > ================================ > > Things that are NOT key facets: > > * The authority that grants permission. In my area, they range > from the Federal government right down to individual small > landowners. My state has a program in place to support > private landowners who wish to do this. > http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/askperm.pdf > and provides a standard permit form > http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/ask.pdf > that they may use, and a standard sticker to apply to their > posters to inform the public that permission may be sought. > > * Whether or not a fee is charged. (Rather, it's whether or not > facility access is the principal benefit of the permission.) > > * The difficulty of obtaining permission, as long as the process > is open to the public at large. (Permits to access certain areas > of US National Parks are by lottery, with many more applicants > than places, but entering the lottery is available to the public > on a nondiscriminatory basis.) > > * The reason that the manager of the facility requires permission. > > * The specific activities that may be allowed, except as posted > and observable in the field. (What should be mapped is what > is posted. Ordinarily, contact information is posted, while > the details are provided along with the permit process.) > > DISTINGUISHING FROM OTHER ACCESS=* > ================================== > > 'access=permit' is different from the following access restrictions, > as indicated: > > access=yes (no permission needed) > access=destination (ordinarily, permission not required as long > as you're visiting the destination) > access=permissive (ordinarily, no permission needed) > access=customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry/dismount (limits to > a particular activity) > access=private, access=no (favored unless conditions are met for > other access=*). I find it difficult to distinguish these two; > I tend toward 'no' only when a way is impassable to a given > transportation mode or when the given mode is prohibited by > statute; 'private' when the given mode is reserved to the > landowner (who can, of course, delegate permission). > (transport mode)=designated Usually implies permission > (transport mode)=use_sidepath Usually inherits access constraints > from 'access=*' > (transport mode)=discouraged Used to represent signage that > deprecates a given transport mode, such as warning HGV away > from narrow but passable ways. > > COMBINATION WITH OTHER TAGS > =========================== > > Including 'access=permit' without contact information for the > permitting authority is to be considered poor practice. If signage > requiring a permit is present without contact information, the access > is likely to be 'private' rather than 'permit' according to the > definitions presented here. > > Of course, 'access=permit' may be applied with conditional > restrictions, just as any other tag. That would allow a mapper to > build up combinations such as: > > "Open to foot/horse/ski travel at all times. Open to motor > vehicles and bicycles by permit May-October, not at other > times. Open to snowmobiles (no permit required) November-April. > No buses or heavy goods vehicles at any time, except for > forestry vehicles." > > That would be a complicated bit of tagging, but would certainly > be representable in the schema. And it would be a reasonably > accurate spelling out of what's meant by local signs that say, > "Seasonal Limited Use Highway, Permit Required." I've never tried > to tag that, I don't see how to do it without violating the "good > practice" of "don't map local legislation." I would simply tag > it as 'motor_vehicle=permit bicycle=permit foot=yes horse=yes > ski=yes snowmobile="yes @ November - April"' and include contact > information. That's going a little bit beyond the observable > sign, but the benefit to routers of at least that much detail > would be pretty compelling. (Given that these roads are also > usually 'highway=unclassified/track surface=compacted, > smoothness=bad', routers would tend to avoid them anyway!) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging