[Tagging] Access by permit

Dave Swarthout daveswarthout at gmail.com
Mon Sep 18 12:20:41 UTC 2017


>There are different difficulties of  gaining a 'permit'. Some have a
numerical limit, some a schedule, some are simply a paperwork exercise.
>There are numerical limits on popular walking tracks to stop overuse (e.g.
Milford Track New Zealand, Overland Track Australia).
>A fair proportion of South Australia has a scheduled permit system so that
you are not on the rocket firing range when it is in that use.

>They all tend towards access=private.

@Warin - I respectfully disagree. I would say they all tend toward
acess=public. I guess it all depends on your point of view. In my
particular case, that of a U.S. miltary base, one could argue the issue of
who actually "owns" the base ad infinitum. The fact is, unless Trump throws
an ethnic card into the mix, the public at large can use those fishing
ponds. There is no other requirement other than that of having a permit.

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18-Sep-17 04:47 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> On 18 September 2017 at 14:55, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You can count me in there as well, 'cause I've got a similar'ish sort of
> question, thanks gents :-)
>
> Just off the Queensland coast, there are a number of large, sand islands,
> which are reached by ferry (in one case, by bridge) & are very popular
> tourist destinations. eg Fraser Island: http://www.
> openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-25.322/152.732
>
> These islands are controlled by Qld National Parks & anybody is allowed to
> visit them, but to drive on the island, either on the beach or inland
> tracks, you must have a vehicle permit, which can be simply bought either
> online, or from various retailers - newsagents, service stations etc. The
> main beaches on each of these islands are also the main roads to travel
> around the island, & are, in fact, designated public roads, where normal
> speed limits, licensing requirements, alcohol limits etc all apply, & are
> enforced by Police.
>
> So how should they be marked?
>
> They're open to the general public until National Parks says no, so that's
> permissive?
>
> But you need a permit, so does that make them private?
>
> Maybe they should be marked as toll=yes, although there's no toll-booth
> where you can pay?
>
> & then how do you mark the entire Island, or just the main beach, as
> needing a permit? Marked tracks can be tagged easily enough, but the beach
> is just a beach!
>
> Looking forward to working something out! :-)
>
>
> The Kokoda Trail, New Guinea has similar requirements - for walkers. A
> permit with a fee ... the fact that some road/path has no tool booth does
> not mean a toll/fee is not charged.
> Arr yes .. the Simpson Desert, Australia has a similar permit thing .. for
> vehicles.
>
> Where a toll/fee is charged then which tag to use fee=* or toll=* ??? This
> should be separate from the access consideration. I would think both are
> the same thing and should be combined at some stage.
>
> There are different difficulties of  gaining a 'permit'. Some have a
> numerical limit, some a schedule, some are simply a paperwork exercise.
> There are numerical limits on popular walking tracks to stop overuse (e.g.
> Milford Track New Zealand, Overland Track Australia).
> A fair proportion of South Australia has a scheduled permit system so that
> you are not on the rocket firing range when it is in that use.
>
> They all tend towards access=private.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170918/80025457/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list