[Tagging] Access by permit

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Mon Sep 18 17:56:40 UTC 2017


On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM, joost schouppe <joost.schouppe at gmail.com>
wrote:

> That said, even if this hivemind of ours (and let me add to that "one of
> us, one of us, one of us") maybe does not like an extra value for the
> access key, I see no reason why you would need to use another database.
> There are very many things which are not mapped by just one key, but by
> many keys combined. You just need a key to classify WHY a thing has a
> certain access key. I see someone already suggested
> permit=registration_at_entry/registration_offsite/online/lottery. That
> could work as a subtag: access:permit=*, foot:permit=*. You could then
> simply tag it as *:permit=yes meaning "there is some permitting process in
> place". That would save you the hassle of defining all the many different
> permitting schemes. It would of course best be extended with some
> information about the difficulty of the process (on arrival, in advance and
> simple, in advance and complicated) and contact information. That would
> also be quite useful to extend the limited model now used on Low Emission
> Zones (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dlow_
> emission_zone). It would certainly be better then the
> now-used access=green_sticker_germany :)
>

Similar things were counterproposed the last time I had mentioned this.

The reason that I don't like it as much is that the 'permit=*' stuff then
grew layer upon layer of qualifiers in the discussion - the denizens of
'tagging' got bogged down with trying to simplify the messy, human-centered
process of access control into a few keys, and got nowhere.

What I wanted was much more minimalistic: "permission is needed to enter
here, but permission is ordinarily granted." The regulatory regime can be
clarified nearly as well with 'access=permit operator=* website=*) (or
permit:website=*, and anything else appropriate from the 'contact' schema).
That avoids trying to 'boil the ocean' of classifying regulatory schemes -
and human ingenuity will keep inventing new ones - and simply delegates to
an external site.

It also provides a clean separation of 'describe what is visible on the
ground' rather than 'encode the local law.' The signage, at least around
here, says things like 'Property of New York City Bureau of Water Supply.
Access by permit only. For information contact : ..." which encodes nicely
into 'access=permit operator="New York City Bureau of Water Supply" website=
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/watershed_protection/recreation.shtml'
That's what's on the ground. It's directly observable by a mapper's
eyeballs. For what it's worth, the signs look like
http://tinyurl.com/y9wunovq, except that they may say 'Permit Access Area'
and 'Access by Permit Only' instead of 'Public Access', and they may list a
different set of designated activities.

The rest of the information - that the permit is free, issued either by the
website, or by mail, or where fish and game licenses are sold; that boats
have to be steam cleaned before being brought in;  that fish entrails must
be disposed of at least 30 metres from any watercourse; or that group size
is limited to six adults, or anything else related to the permit,. is local
legislation, and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice says,
"Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality." The
real-life sign says, "Access by permit only, for information contact..."
and that's what I propose to map!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170918/b0b6fe72/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list