[Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Tue Jul 19 20:01:17 UTC 2016


On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl>
ha scritto:
>>
>> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are
loads of people with that explicit permission.
>
>
>
> that's also what I had written on the imports list, but I think it's
maybe time to rethink this and evaluate if we shouldn't have more
possibilities to differentiate. Surely it is a big difference between a
totally private driveway or industrial site and government land where you
need a permission but everybody will get it almost automatically?
>
> Or another case again in some Italian towns: you need a permission to
access with a motor vehicle, but you will only get it if you live there
(still, these are not pedestrian like streets, they're more like normal
roads, and besides residents psv, taxi and police, and public
administration get permits).
>
> Not everywhere is GB where current access restrictions seem to be
sufficient for describing the situation.

Thanks, Martin, that's the point I'm trying to make, and it sounds as if I
may have convinced you!

The High Peaks Wilderness is a lot more like a public park than it is like
your driveway. Should it be access=private because on the way in, you have
to fill out a form and leave it in the letterbox at a place like this
<https://fortysixupsanddowns.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/roaring-brook-trail-register.jpg>?
Does that change fundamentally if you have to download a form like this
<http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf/newaccessprmt.pdf> from a website,
fill it out, print it, and have one copy on your car's dashboard and one in
your person? That sort of regime: "it's open to the public, but you have to
ask for permission explicitly, which you'll always get if you're following
the rules" is common in backcountry areas of the United States.

It's more a mandatory notification scheme than anything else: if I've
picked up a High Peaks permit, the rangers know who I am and what my plans
are, so they've got an idea where to look if I'm reported missing (which
God forbid!). In a few very stressed areas, they start limiting the number
of permits and using them for capacity management, but that's the
exception, not the rule. When you consider that on my last trip to the High
Peaks, I was at times over 30 km from the nearest road and spent four days
before my first supply stop, it's understandable that they want some sort
of warning what your plans are. Europe has very few places that are that
remote.

It really still has the feel of 'public park with a few formalities.' It's
much more like 'public park' than any of the trips that I've done on
private land, where I've needed to ask politely, and answers have varied
all over the map:

- "Who the hell are you?" (from a farmer brandishing a shotgun)
- "Absolutely not!"
- "A day-use membership is $55/year for individuals and $65/year for
families"
- "Sure, go ahead, but make sure you pack out anything you pack in!"
- "Don't go on the south forty, I let the bull out of the barn and he don't
like strangers nohow."
- (At a small resort, where I was asking to cross their land to get to a
route") "So, am I bursting at the seams with paying guests that I can't let
you park? Please park over by the barn and don't block the driveways!"

Instead, I know exactly what to expect and know that permission will not be
refused for a trip that follows the rules.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160719/117cfa1c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list