[Tagging] Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?
kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Wed Jul 20 16:31:10 UTC 2016
Oops, accidentally sent this from the wrong mailbox again.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> Also, we aren't being consistent with such a strict definition. There
> are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
> That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way. But it is amazingly
> rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
> reasonable times. So technically they should perhaps be permissive, but
> really that does not match. Arguably we should have
> access=public_invited, which is subtly different from yes in that there
> is no legal right. But I think leaving them untagged (and thus yes) is
> just fine and it's a problem that doesn't need addressing.
I thought that the issue of shopping malls was what 'access=customers'
was invented to handle.
But "access=customers" doesn't fit very well with the parks that I've
been working on.
I just want to be able to look at my map and answer the quick
question, "is there red tape that I have to plan for before I
plan a trip here?" If the answer is "yes," I can look at other
sources to find out what the requirements are - they may be as
simple as tucking my New York City access card in my pack,
or they may involve trying to book a specific date, or even
entering a permit lottery months in advance. In the vast majority
of places where I go, it's simply filling out a form on a website
or stopping off at a ranger station to do a little paperwork.
It's common in American law to say that something
"requires permission" when the permission is granted, always,
by policy, and the real requirement is that you request it,
as a means of notifying the authorities of your intentions.
We write laws that say, "thou shalt not," and then designate
the government agency that has the authority to waive the
law. Many "thou shalt not"s are really, "if you're planning
to do this, we really, really want to review your plans
first," and I've done a good many things with paperwork
that has titles like "Temporary Revocable Permit" or
"Special Temporary Operating Authority."
At this point, I'm not trying to encode all of the Ptolemaic
epicycles that tend to accrete on a permitting system. I'm willing to
say "access=permit foot=yes permit:website=..." as an
oversimplification of some actual regulation like:
"the facility charges horseback riders, drivers and passengers in
motor vehicles a fee for entry during the period that commences on the
Friday before the fourth Monday in May and ends on the second Monday
in October. Entry on foot or by bicycle is free of charge at all
times, but a fee may be charged for use of the bathhouse and swimming
beach or for rental of a campsite. Outside the listed dates, entry is
free but the bathhouse, boat launch and swimming beach are closed.
Fees are waived for New York State residents age 62 and over and for
holders of an Empire Passport access permit. The waiver does not apply
to campsite rental. Roads are not maintained in winter and may be
accessible only by snowshoes, skis or snowmobile. Snowshoes or skis
are required at any time that there is more than an 8 inches (20 cm)
of snow on the trails. Snowmobiles and horses may be taken
only on trails designated for their use."
because someone seeing 'access=permit' can look on the web site for
I also would propose to use 'access=permit' (or whatever other consensus
emerges) for private lands whose owners participate in the ASK program
I find that even when a landowner doesn't participate in the program
(yet), the permission card <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/ask.pdf>
is a valuable tool - it looks governmental,
and reminds the owner that he's generally NOT opening himself
to liability by giving permission (which is the usual reason to refuse).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging