[Tagging] Access by permit

marc marc marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 21 18:34:56 UTC 2017


you do so much slalom to avoid the categories access=private and fee=yes 
that I persist in believing that it would be easy to add tags to these 2 
functions that already work to explain the conditions in which access is 
possible. this would allow to tag in the same way a road leading to a 
lake belonging to a sports club as the road leading to a nature reserve 
that would need a "permit".
a tag like access=private + access:conditional=permit.
for app and routing that doesn't understand "permit" or for people that 
doesn't have the correct permit, it work like right now
for the few % that have the permit, it allow to use this info (and maybe 
it need a tag with the permit name, to check if the user is allowed or 
not to use it)

Le 21. 09. 17 à 20:09, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
> Thanks to everyone for continued patience with trying to refine the
> definition.
> 
> I think we've most likely reached a point where "with all the horse
> puckey about, there must be a pony in there somewhere!"
> 
> Let me try to take another run at the hill.
> 
> WHERE DOES ACCESS=PERMIT APPLY?
> ===============================
> 
> The lines between different sorts of access=* are always going to be
> slightly blurred at the margins, because it's a human system we're
> dealing with. Nevertheless, there are a few common themes here.
> 
> access=permit generally indicates "permission must be obtained in
> advance, but permission is ordinarily available to the general
> public."
> 
> The situations where it seems to be a recurring motif are access
> to quasi-private roads, trails, parcels of land, and access to urban
> parking. (There are also the ridiculous straw-men that people are
> raising - countries that require visas for entry, the fact that a
> driving license is required to drive on public roads, the fact that
> some places require a doctor's certification for access to facilities
> for the disabled. I ignore those for now.)
> 
> For both of these, key aspects are (1) that permission must be
> obtained in advance, often at a different location; (2) the permission
> is truly for public access to the facility, rather than the public
> access being a benefit of some other affiliation, or being incidental
> to another service.
> 
> URBAN PARKING:  If it's simply "you must pay to park", it's
> 'fee=yes'. That carries the expectation that if you show up at the
> facility and it's not full, you can pay your money and park there. By
> contrast, 'access=permit' is, "you must contract with the facility in
> advance to be allowed to park there." When I lived in a larger city,
> there were many parking lots that were publicly owned but required a
> municipal permit to park in them. It was easier for the city to
> administer than having attendants and/or parking meters at each
> one. Many "park and ride" commuter lots were administered in this way.
> 
> ROADS: I could imagine roads that are administered in the same way,
> but around here I can't cite an example. (Even our roads that have
> automated toll collection with a transponder have either a handful of
> manual toll booths for visitors, or can assess the toll by means of a
> license plate camera and bill the vehicle owner.) But it's certainly
> possible to imagine a road whose use is by subscription only, and I'm
> sure that such a beast exists somewhere in this varied world. Ordinary
> toll roads are 'toll=*'. You show up, pay your money and go, with no
> advance formalities.
> 
> I'm not sure about "low emission vehicle". I see it as being more
> analogous to "heavy goods vehicle", "high occupancy vehicle",
> "motorcycle", .... a vehicle type that the existing schema could
> accommodate. It's an attribute of the vehicle (perhaps attested to by
> a certificate or medallion), rather than a permission.
> 
> OUTDOOR FACILITIES: Here the difference is fairly clear in my mind,
> but there is room for judgment at the corners.
> 
> I would exclude sports clubs, country clubs, summer camps, ski
> resorts, and such facilities that provide access to members only from
> 'access=permit'. A membership in such an organization provides other
> services than simple access to the land: often food, lodging, changing
> rooms and showers, warming huts, ski lift services, and similar
> ancillary services are bundled in the fee, or conditioned on paying it
> as well as paying extra for the service. For several of the ski
> resorts around here, I would nevertheless add 'foot=permit' or
> 'foot=permissive', because they have a policy of either out-and-out
> allowing the public to access their grounds (provided that they do not
> intrude on pistes, or out of season), or to access their grounds with
> prior permission. That is a permit merely to access the lands, rather
> than a membership or fee for services in which the land access is one
> of an array of benefits. Other than that sort of exception, these
> facilities are "access=private."
> 
> I would also exclude those facilities that condition access to being a
> member of a particular group, for instance, a parishioner of a
> particular church, a member of a particular profession, or a citizen
> of a particular dependent nation (e.g. Native American
> reservations). These, too, are 'access=private'.
> 
> Facilities that offer 'day memberships' are in a grey area, but I'd
> tend toward 'access=private' or 'access=fee' mostly depending on
> whether the permission must be purchased in advance or is available on
> arrival. Still, I wouldn't raise a stink if someone else were to
> decide that such a facility is 'access=permit'.
> 
> Conditions required by local law that are not specifically bound to
> the facilities in question are entirely out of scope. The fact that I
> would need a state hunting license, an appropriate firearm
> registration, and a bear tag to hunt bear on a particular preserve, as
> well as having access to the land, is not something that I propose to
> map. All the state and local regulations regarding the possession of
> arms and harvesting of wildlife must be complied with whether I'm on
> state land, New York City watershed, a private preserve, or my
> brother's back forty. (If I were to hunt, I'd favour my brother's back
> forty, because I don't want to have to carry a deer out of most of
> those other places. My brother can get his tractor pretty far into his
> woods on his ATV trail.)
> 
> So is there still a place after this for 'access=permit'?
> 
> WHAT ACCESS=PERMIT MEANS
> ========================
> 
> There are still significant cases that remain, even after excluding
> all of these. They've been given in earlier messages in the
> thread. They seem to share a common set of attributes. A permit must
> be applied for in advance of a visit. The application process may be
> easy and fast, or lengthy and difficult, but in any case applies to
> the general public in a nondiscriminatory fashion (barring certain
> exceptions such as "minors may not apply", "convicted felons may not
> apply", with the exception groups all being groups who ordinarily are
> expected to have diminished privileges). The permit is specifically
> for access to the facility, rather than for a bundle of services to
> which access is incidental. Often, permits are free of charge or
> available at only a nominal administrative fee. (But see the
> discussion of urban parking: I'm comfortable with the distinction that
> 'access=fee' might mean "fee paid on arrival or departure" while
> 'access=permit' would mean "access must be permitted in advance."
> 
> One thing that is common to all the cases I've seen, be they parking,
> restricted road, or outdoor facility, is that they are posted with
> their permit requirements. (Ordinarily 'access by permit only' and
> contact information.) If the posters have no contact information, that
> tends toward 'access=private' - if the manager wanted permits to be
> available to the general public, they'd ordinarily tell the public
> where to inquire. This check (which is really a special case of
> "visible on the ground") would eliminate most of the spurious things
> that posters here have warned against. Nowhere have I seen posters
> warning that a license is required to drive on the public highway!
> 
> So the key facets seem to be.
> 
>     * Advance permission is required. (Generally speaking, one cannot
>       expect simply to arrive at the site and receive permission on the
>       spot.)
> 
>     * A policy is in place whereby the general public, rather than
>       members of a specified group, may apply for permission. (Among
>       other things, this alone would rule out border controls: the
>       citizens of a state ordinarily do not require permission to
>       enter or remain in their own state. It also rules out membership
>       clubs, affinity groups, dependent nation lands, ... which
>       are some other 'access=*', often 'private')
> 
>     * Permission is ordinarily certified by a paper statement,
>       card, vehicle tag, medallion, or other physical token.
> 
>     * The permission is specifically for access to the lands, ways or
>       other facilities. This eliminates things like 'day memberships'
>       that some clubs offer: those are for other services, and the
>       access to the land is incidental to the package. It also
>       eliminates documentation of things such as vehicle type or
>       disability that are attributes (which perhaps must be proven)
>       of the vehicle or of the person, rather than permissions.
> 
> WHAT ACCESS=PERMIT DOES NOT MEAN
> ================================
> 
> Things that are NOT key facets:
> 
>     * The authority that grants permission. In my area, they range
>       from the Federal government right down to individual small
>       landowners. My state has a program in place to support
>       private landowners who wish to do this.
> http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/askperm.pdf
>       and provides a standard permit form
> http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/ask.pdf
>       that they may use, and a standard sticker to apply to their
>       posters to inform the public that permission may be sought.
> 
>     * Whether or not a fee is charged. (Rather, it's whether or not
>       facility access is the principal benefit of the permission.)
> 
>     * The difficulty of obtaining permission, as long as the process
>       is open to the public at large. (Permits to access certain areas
>       of US National Parks are by lottery, with many more applicants
>       than places, but entering the lottery is available to the public
>       on a nondiscriminatory basis.)
> 
>     * The reason that the manager of the facility requires permission.
> 
>     * The specific activities that may be allowed, except as posted
>       and observable in the field. (What should be mapped is what
>       is posted. Ordinarily, contact information is posted, while
>       the details are provided along with the permit process.)
> 
> DISTINGUISHING FROM OTHER ACCESS=*
> ==================================
> 
> 'access=permit' is different from the following access restrictions,
> as indicated:
> 
>      access=yes (no permission needed)
>      access=destination (ordinarily, permission not required as long
>         as you're visiting the destination)
>      access=permissive (ordinarily, no permission needed)
>      access=customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry/dismount (limits to
>         a particular activity)
>      access=private, access=no (favored unless conditions are met for
>         other access=*). I find it difficult to distinguish these two;
>         I tend toward 'no' only when a way is impassable to a given
>         transportation mode or when the given mode is prohibited by
>         statute; 'private' when the given mode is reserved to the
>         landowner (who can, of course, delegate permission).
>      (transport mode)=designated Usually implies permission
>      (transport mode)=use_sidepath Usually inherits access constraints
>          from 'access=*'
>      (transport mode)=discouraged Used to represent signage that
>          deprecates a given transport mode, such as warning HGV away
>          from narrow but passable ways.
> 
> COMBINATION WITH OTHER TAGS
> ===========================
> 
> Including 'access=permit' without contact information for the
> permitting authority is to be considered poor practice.  If signage
> requiring a permit is present without contact information, the access
> is likely to be 'private' rather than 'permit' according to the
> definitions presented here.
> 
> Of course, 'access=permit' may be applied with conditional
> restrictions, just as any other tag. That would allow a mapper to
> build up combinations such as:
> 
>      "Open to foot/horse/ski travel at all times. Open to motor
>      vehicles and bicycles by permit May-October, not at other
>      times. Open to snowmobiles (no permit required) November-April.
>      No buses or heavy goods vehicles at any time, except for
>      forestry vehicles."
> 
> That would be a complicated bit of tagging, but would certainly
> be representable in the schema. And it would be a reasonably
> accurate spelling out of what's meant by local signs that say,
> "Seasonal Limited Use Highway, Permit Required." I've never tried
> to tag that, I don't see how to do it without violating the "good
> practice" of "don't map local legislation." I would simply tag
> it as 'motor_vehicle=permit bicycle=permit foot=yes horse=yes
> ski=yes snowmobile="yes @ November - April"' and include contact
> information. That's going a little bit beyond the observable
> sign, but the benefit to routers of at least that much detail
> would be pretty compelling. (Given that these roads are also
> usually 'highway=unclassified/track surface=compacted,
> smoothness=bad', routers would tend to avoid them anyway!)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



More information about the Tagging mailing list