[Tagging] Access by permit

[Kevin Kenny]

Going over old ground once more: The proposal is abandoned based on
strong opposition from the community. I am told that access=permit is
the same thing as access=private (which, as far as I can determine, is
also no different from access=no). I accept that.

Warin's opinion is an obvious community consensus. I don't like the
consensus. I don't agree with it. But I respect it.

There are numerous protected areas in my part of the world where
access is granted to all comers subject to certain minimal formalities
- which may be as simple as going to a Web site, entering contact
information, and checking a box that states that you've read the
relevant regulations and agree to comply. I want to be able to render
these areas on trail maps as distinct from both 'access=yes' and
'access=private' because to my mind they are distinct. Specifically,
they are places where I have a reasonable likelihood of being able
to plan travel, but are flagged that I need to research further. (As
distinct
from access=private, where if I don't know the landowner, I'm
likely NOT to be able to plan to cross. Nevertheless, it's clear that to
the hive-mind of the community, they are one and the same.

I would prefer to produce my trail maps based on OSM data, rather than
maintaining secondary information in a private database because the
information I want to render doesn't fit in the OSM schema. But I'll
go to the work of maintaining the private database in order to respect
the community consensus.

I haven't gone to the trouble of retagging the areas currently have
the now-deprecated 'permit' tag - I simply haven't managed to muster
very much enthusiasm to do so, partly because I haven't yet worked out
the schema for the external database that I'd need to rework my
rendering. It's just not been urgent, since nobody's seen fit to
disturb the 'permit' tags that I already added. The rendering that I'm
using still works for now.

Proposing that OSM make this distinction was a mistake. I was simply
wrong to imagine that enough other people would want what I want. Some
data do not belong in OSM. This distinction, apparently, is among
them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170918/fb420253/attachment-0001.html>