On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:34 PM, marc marc <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
