[Tagging] permissive etc. (was Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking))
gdt at ir.bbn.com
Fri Jan 13 13:03:42 GMT 2012
Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> writes:
> On 1/13/2012 7:17 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:
>> When I was adding this:
>> which is something that you do need an actual permit to access (on a
>> horse) I left the horse access as "permissive" but added a note against
>> it. I'm not sure that "access=permit" without some sort of note would
>> make it clear (even to a native English speaker).
> If you need a permit, shouldn't it be private?
I see your point, but I think the problem is that we're building an
taxonomy of access rules piecewise by tags, rather than either designing
an taxonomy and then adding tags, or deciding that it's too scary and we
I wonder what data consumers do with these tags. I think some of them
get mapped via mkgmap to garmin flags (to avoid routing on private
roads), but I have a hard time seeing how all these nuances would get
I see things as
a right to go there, period
but with 'fee=yes', not so straightforward
no right, but not reason not to just go there
the public is welcome to just show up, but has to pay, but it
may or may not be private, and thus the owner may have a right to
exclude, even though generally they don't.
this could be easy to get and issued to all who ask, or very
selective, and it's then very different in tone
to me this has the connotation that if you don't already know you
belong because you have a special relationship, it's off limits
So I'd lean towards access=permit if there is an expectation that anyone
can get a permit, and access=private if that isn't true.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Tagging