[Tagging] Access by permit

[Philip Barnes]

Is access by permit not permissive access?

access=permissive, permissive=permit maybe.

Fishing rights are very different to access and need to be treated as a separate issue.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 18 September 2017 13:20:41 BST, Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com> wrote:
>>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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170918/16a9e140/attachment.html>