On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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=* ? > I'm absolutely fine with permit:operator if needed. In a great many cases, the permit contact is the same as the general contact for the site, and in that case, I don't see the need for double tagging. Can we agree that the permit contact uses permit:operator=*, permit:addr:*=*, permit:phone=*, etc? and falls back on the corresponding tags without 'permit:' if the more specific tagging is not present? By the same token it's possible to imagine separate foot:permit:website=*, snowmobile:permit:website=* - separated by transportation mode. I don't think I have a current example, because New York went to a scheme where snowmobile registration fees give permission to use most of the trails, but there used to be examples where the snowmobile access permits were contracted to a different servicer than the summer permits.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
