[Tagging] Access by permit

Wolfgang Zenker wolfgang at lyxys.ka.sub.org
Wed Sep 20 20:08:49 UTC 2017


Summary first: This looks very good to me, and I think it is in line
with the discussion here in the last few days. I support this.

* Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com> [170920 20:39]:
> The last few messages in this thread seem to have quieted much of the
> discussion.  Let me summarize my position, and see if we've achieved
> rough consensus.

> access=permit (and (transport mode)=permit):

>     Symbolizes that the landowner requires permission for access, but
>     has a policy that grants access to members of the public provided
>     that certain formalities are observed.

>     Ordinarily this tag will be accompanied by an 'operator=*' tag and
>     one or more tags giving contact information (phone=*, fax=*,
>     email=*, etc.) and/or an address in the Karlsruhe schema. If the
>     contact information for the person or agency that administers
>     permission is different from the main contact for a location, way
>     or area, or if the address of the permitting person or agency is
>     not the physical address of the site, then the tags may be
>     prefixed with 'permit:': that is, permit:phone=*, permit::fax=*,
>     permit:email=*,permit:addr:*=*, etc.

> At least in some locales, 'permit' is distinguished from 'private'
> in that 'private' areas are at best unknown and at worst allow access
> only to parties with a prior business relationship with the landowner.
> The fact that there is some formal process for obtaining permission
> is useful information at the early stages of trip planning. It is
> distinguished from 'yes' in that one cannot simply arrive at the
> site and expect to access it. Grouping it under 'yes' violates
> the cultural assumptions of at least a significant set of OSM users,
> and grouping it under 'no/private' does the same.

> If details of permit administration are observable on the ground, we
> can work out ways to map them. In the common situation that I have
> observed around me (and I've seen it with properties belonging to New
> York State, several municipal governments, Nature Conservancy, Open
> Space Institute, and several private conservancies), the common
> phrasing on signs is: 'Access by permit only. For information contact:
> [...]' (as opposed to the 'POSTED: No Trespassing' that denotes
> access=private). Since what is ordinarily visible on the ground is the
> signage forbidding unpermitted access (but implying that permission is
> routinely granted), that's the information that I propose to map.
> Since ordinarily I do NOT see details of the permit regime in the
> field, I do not propose any sort of schema for permit administration
> at the present time.

> Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate?

I agree with both the suggested tagging as well as the rationale for
the proposed tagging.

> It would meet my needs for trail mapping. (On some maps, I'd wind up
> further dividing by 'operator' because, for instance, New York City
> access rules are already familiar to most of the intended users. But
> how I choose to render is between me and my users.)

> If it appears acceptable, I'll update the Wiki page and post a summary
> on the 'talk' page.

Please do so.

> Beyond that, this is the first proposal I've made here that seems
> to have enough traction to go forward. Can someone help me with
> the formalities for the voting process, assuming that we've achieved
> a rough consensus? I've not done that before.

Sorry, I have no clue about the voting process here beyond having voted
myself a few times.

Wolfgang



More information about the Tagging mailing list