[Tagging] Access by permit

[Dave Swarthout]

@Kevin - let's move you off the fork and onto a revised proposal. Your
explanation covers all the bases, and quite well I must say. I can't
imagine what else might pop up during continued debate but it's obvious to
me that the tag is necessary, justified, and its use well reasoned.

Thanks again for your efforts to move this proposal forward.

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170922/3b0e0201/attachment.html>