[Tagging] Access by permit

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm trying to tag some stocked fishing ponds that reside on a military
> reservation in Alaska, Fort Greely. The ponds are stocked by the
> Alaska Department of Fish & Game but require a special permit for access.
> This is from the Department of Fish & Game website:
>
> These lakes are on military land. A permit is required to legally access
> these lakes. For Army land a Recreational Access Permit (RAP) is required.
>
> access=permissive isn't quite right nor is access=private.
>
> While we're at it, I've tagged these lakes with fishing=yes (869
> instances) but Taginfo shows many objects with fishing=permit (38
> instances) along with other values. Is the fishing=permit tag enough to
> clarify the situation? There is also a tag fishing=stocked (141 instances)
> that I would prefer to use but then the access issue must be treated in
> some other way.
>

I think I'm the culprit with fishing=permit. I tagged the instances and
proposed the tag I used in:

    https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit

The proposal was NOT well received - I'd go so far as to say, 'unanimously
rejected by everyone that commented on it'. Many users of 'tagging'
informed me that there was no significant difference between 'permit' and
'private', and absolutely nobody on 'tagging' supported the proposal.  I
don't have time at the moment to find the discussion on the mailing list,
but
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit
is an example of the sort of comments I received. It appears that you're
the first person other than me to think that 'access=private' doesn't cover
the case.

I suspect that we're therefore both wrong, but I have heard absolutely no
counterproposal other than to tag 'access=private' and consider permit
regimes to be Out of Scope.

For me, and apparently for you, there's a big difference between 'this land
is private', and 'access to this land requires certain formalities to be
complied with, but permission is ordinarily granted.' But i appear to be
imagining that the difference is important, since nobody else on the planet
sees it.

I simply haven't troubled yet to retag the New York City watershed lands
that require users to apply for a free permit on the web site, as being
'access=no' or 'access=private', because it makes no sense to me given that
the permit is free and routinely issued to all applicants. Moreover, I need
some distinction between the access classes, since I render them
differently on trail maps that I produce. That said, when I mentioned that
I cannot render the two things differently unless there is some tag
distinguishing them, I got several replies asserting that was 'tagging for
the renderer.' Apparently I don't understand what that means, either - I
had previously thought that it meant asserting a tag that was not true in
order to have something look good in the default rendering on
openstreetmap.org.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170918/334b1b7c/attachment-0001.html>