[Tagging] Access by permit

[Dave Swarthout]

>To me access=public would be the same as access=yes - no permission
required.

Yes, for me too. That's not the point here. I merely said that by
comparison, IMO, access=permit is more like access=public (or access=yes)
than it is to access=private. If you think access=private is closer, so be
it. Either way, access to the general public is available via a permit, so
IMO it cannot be considered private, nor is it an unqualified "yes".  We'll
just have to agree to disagree.

I'm not alone in wishing this were an easier process and that a resolution
would be agreed upon. Unfortunately, it might never happen because even
with what I see as crystal clear reasoning provided by Kevin, it's obvious
to me consensus will not be possible within the group. But should it
somehow come to pass that a better tagging scenario results, I can easily
replace my access=permit tags.

As for whether the object also contains contact info or permit info as
well, that is an option available to mappers much like the number of lanes
of a highway, or its surface - it's optional and can always be added later.
To make such a subsidiary tag a de facto requirement for acceptance is over
shooting the mark

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19-Sep-17 09:54 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19-Sep-17 03:56 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>
>> The real-life sign says, "Access by permit only, for information
>> contact..." and that's what I propose to map!
>>
>> Yep.
>> I think the important thing is the contact information - this is where
>> the detail of what is required can be obtained rather than having those
>> details in OSM.
>> It is the details that vary a lot from place to place and maybe too
>> varied around the world for renders to be bothered with. It might just
>> change from time to time, rather not have the dynamic stuff on OSM?
>>
>> So access=permit with permit_contact:web/email/phone/*=* ???
>> Would that be a compromise 'we' can all use?
>>
>
> You mean, like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424226491 (and all the
> other parcels from that import
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import:_NYCDEP_Watershed_Recreation_Areas>
> )?
>
> It's already there. At least on everything that I've ever tagged with
> *=permit. So there's zero additional work for me in complying with your
> request. :)
>
>
> My comments are not a request, but a suggestion. Hence the question marks.
>
> I don't think the tagging on  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424226491
> goes far enough.
> There is no specific contact information for a permit.
> Not all permits come from the land owners/controllers some come from
> another body e.g. Kokoda Track.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170919/33407966/attachment.html>