Kevin Kenny <> writes:

> The last few messages in this thread seem to have quieted much of the
> discussion.  Let me summarize my position, and see if we've achieved
> rough consensus.
> access=permit (and (transport mode)=permit):
>     Symbolizes that the landowner requires permission for access, but
>     has a policy that grants access to members of the public provided
>     that certain formalities are observed.
>     Ordinarily this tag will be accompanied by an 'operator=*' tag and
>     one or more tags giving contact information (phone=*, fax=*,
>     email=*, etc.) and/or an address in the Karlsruhe schema. If the
>     contact information for the person or agency that administers
>     permission is different from the main contact for a location, way
>     or area, or if the address of the permitting person or agency is
>     not the physical address of the site, then the tags may be
>     prefixed with 'permit:': that is, permit:phone=*, permit::fax=*,
>     permit:email=*,permit:addr:*=*, etc.

I would like to strongly support this notion, and I really do not
understand why it is controversial.  There is a huge difference between
"generally one cannot" and "generally one can, after enduring minor

If it turns out that the overwhelming majority of people think that
permit is almost like private, little harm will have been done.  If it
turns out to be useful, we will have gained something.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to