[Tagging] Access by permit

[Warin]

On 25-Sep-17 04:20 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com 
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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=* ?
>
>
> I'm absolutely fine with permit:operator if needed. In a great many 
> cases, the permit contact is the same as the general contact for the 
> site, and in that case, I don't see the need for double tagging. Can 
> we agree that the permit contact uses permit:operator=*, 
> permit:addr:*=*, permit:phone=*, etc? and falls back on the 
> corresponding tags without 'permit:' if the more specific tagging is 
> not present?
>
> By the same token it's possible to imagine separate 
> foot:permit:website=*, snowmobile:permit:website=* - separated by 
> transportation mode. I don't think I have a current example, because 
> New York went to a scheme where snowmobile registration fees give 
> permission to use most of the trails, but there used to be examples 
> where the snowmobile access permits were contracted to a different 
> servicer than the summer permits.

That makes sense to me.

I too have no example where the transport nature determines the method 
of obtaining a permit. But a provision for it does no harm?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170925/a6675506/attachment.html>