[Tagging] Access by permit

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:34 PM, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> 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".
>

fee=yes is a total non-issue. In fact, no place that I've tagged
access=permit
requires a fee. For the specific case of urban parking, which is one case
that I do use navigation systems for, I already offered to distinguish
access=permit (which must be obtained in advance) from fee=yes (pay
on the spot).

You seem to have a view that the permits are receipts for
fees paid, and that purpose of the tag is solely to inform
routing and navigation engines. Neither is true. In fact, the
areas that I've tagged with 'permit' have been to clarify the question:
"May I hike here?" And I don't refer to trails: off-trail hiking is widely
practiced here and is often condoned by the authorities.

And what you see as 'slalom', I see as 'trying to come up with an accurate
definition, excluding a number of straw men that have been erected against
the proposal.' That appears to require discussing every other form of
access tag and distinguishing them from what is proposed, since several
users have insisted that there is no difference between 'permit' and
various other tags or simply attacked the proposal for vagueness.
I don't see any way to be adequately definite without exploring
all the boundaries.

You leave me on Morton's Fork: either the proposal is too vague to
support, or it's too complex to support.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170921/7b29cbe7/attachment-0001.html>