Ok, Warin My suggestion was only a last resorce if "access=permit" loses the vote process again. I understand a permit is not a fee, is "some kind of paperwork done in advance"
- José Moya El 24/9/2017 3:37, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió: On 21-Sep-17 04:01 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. 'fee' is an already established key. Don't change its use. fee=book makes no sense considering the present use of 'fee'. access is not used to signify fee. Don't change that. access=permit Yes operator=* ... no - the permit organisation may not be 'operator'. I much prefer the permit:*=* system as that does signify that it is strictly related to the permit. If a fee is required then permit:fee=* might be suitable ... similar to the contact details permit:phone/website/email=* ? Definitions??? Something like? A permit is a formal process required to gain access, typically resulting in a issue of a paper form. It is not the membership of an organisation (e.g. sporting culb). 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
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging