[Tagging] Access by permit

[Warin]

On 21-Sep-17 04:01 PM, José G Moya Y. wrote:
> Hi
> I agree with the permit system as it is discused here. I found it 
> useful for National Parks, specially for World Heritage Biosphere 
> Reservations,  where a small amount of people has to book in advance.
> If it keeps getting a strong opposition, you could consider mapping as 
> access=fee and adding a "book" tag somewhere in the fee system, such 
> as fee=book, to make users know the access needs booking in advance.
> But I prefer access=permit.

'fee' is an already established key. Don't change its use. fee=book 
makes no sense considering the present use of 'fee'.
access is not used to signify fee. Don't change that.

access=permit  Yes
operator=* ... no - the permit organisation may not be 'operator'. I 
much prefer the permit:*=* system as that does signify that it is 
strictly related to the permit.
If a fee is required then permit:fee=* might be suitable ... similar to 
the contact details permit:phone/website/email=* ?


Definitions??? Something like?
A permit is a formal process required to gain access, typically 
resulting in a issue of a paper form.
It is not the membership of an organisation (e.g. sporting culb).


> El 21/9/2017 4:48, "Warin" <61sundowner at gmail.com 
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> escribió:
>
>     On 21-Sep-17 11:24 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>>     I am in total agreement with the proposal as it's been developed
>>     in this thread.
>>
>>     I too am unfamiliar with structuring the voting process but it
>>     may be enough to simply add a new section "Voting" at the end of
>>     the page, copying some boiler-plate from some other proposal, and
>>     advertising on this list. The voting, just like any discussion we
>>     engage in on these mailing lists, is open to debate and the
>>     result is AFAIK non-binding. People can do as they wish afterward.
>     NO. The formal process is to;
>     1) create a proposal page -
>     2) then call for comments as a new subject here on this list.
>     3) After at least 2 weeks consider any comments made, modify the
>     proposal and if that looks good
>     4) then call for votes as a new subject here on this list.
>     5) after another 2 weeks and some number of votes consider if it
>     passes
>
>     OR
>     You can simply use the tag. There are some 235 uses from taginfo
>     now, so it has been used.
>     As there are few of these tags around then it should be
>     documented  - create a new wiki page.
>     235 is not large but it does establish a use.
>
>     Taginfo also has use of 'permit' .. no explanation of what these
>     are for and the numbers are small.
>
>     Comment - there are a few that use it for car parks in the US. But
>     no information on where to obtain a permit.
>     I do think that the permit contact details need to be available,
>     and this should be suggested a a 'recommendation'? on the wiki page.
>
>>
>>     Many thanks to Kevin for the work you've done on this tag.
>>
>>     On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         On 21-Sep-17 06:01 AM, marc marc wrote:
>>
>>             Le 20. 09. 17 à 20:39, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
>>
>>                 Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate?
>>
>>             I do not see any difference between access=permit and
>>             (not tag for)
>>             access to a sports club : you can go there if you meet
>>             certain
>>             conditions and generally any sports club allows you to
>>             "buy a permit
>>             according to their formality"
>>             I see no difference with private property either. if you
>>             "follow"
>>             my formalities, you will have the right to come at home.
>>             I think that it would be preferable to improve access=private
>>             by adding a tag to describe any means of "overriding"
>>             this restriction
>>             rather than inventing a new type of access that is
>>             between sports clubs
>>             are public for the moment), access=private and paying
>>             infrastructure
>>             like tool roads.
>>
>>
>>         The primary difference between access=private and access=permit
>>         is that a formal permit system exists that anyone can easily use.
>>         Some permits are easy and free,
>>         some you and I cannot get (unless you are the right tribe or
>>         have strong cultural connections).
>>
>>         Examples;
>>         The Kokoda Trail is not 'owned' by the permit authority.
>>         Here the Trail goes through many villages and is administered
>>         by a government appointed body.
>>         The practice here is to get a permit from the authority and
>>         not bother with the property owners.
>>         Typically normal people will use a guided 'tour' and that
>>         organisation will be registered with the authority and get
>>         the individual permits.
>>
>>         The Woomera Prohibited Areas (e.g. way 436098551) again are
>>         not 'owned' by the authority.
>>         These areas have both the rocket range and property owners.
>>         The range operators have provided the property owners with
>>         shelters -
>>          most of the property owners use the shelters as cool places
>>         to shelter from the heat (as well as rockets).
>>         Here I would hope that people wanting access would negotiate
>>         with both the permit system and the private property owner.
>>         The permit system ensures that travellers are not present
>>         when the rockets are being fired.
>>
>>         ------------------------
>>         There is enough difference that it should be tagged together
>>         with the way that permits can be obtained.
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170924/04a6e65e/attachment.html>