[Tagging] Access by permit

Sun Sep 24 07:47:58 UTC 2017

Ok, Warin
My suggestion was only a last resorce if "access=permit" loses the vote
process again. I understand a permit is not a fee, is "some kind of
paperwork done in advance"

- José Moya

El 24/9/2017 3:37, "Warin" <61sundowner at gmail.com> escribió:

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> 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> 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.
>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170924/9d7ad8f8/attachment-0001.html>