[Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Jul 27 23:26:43 UTC 2018

On 28/07/18 07:47, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:54 AM marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> a good idea would be to explain with a (as easy as possible) example
>> why access=customers or private does not fit for your need.
>> If it was what you did in your previous email, sorry but I didn't
>> understand it, because your examples are too general, without
>> explanation about existing tag problems
> (Side note: I favour 'access=permit' over 'access=licence' because
> it's spelt the same way on both sides of the Atlantic. Choosing a tag
> that's spelt differently in US and UK English simply invites
> misspellings.)
> Here's an attempt at an explanation:
> In the area that I'm mapping, there are rural regions - even with the
> same land management - that have different regulatory regimes - and I
> wish to render them differently.
> They fall into major categories.  I'll also include specific examples
> from the New York City water supply lands, because that specific land
> owner has (or has had) examples in all the categories.
> [1] 'access=private'.  These are private lands, or government-owned
> lands for which public access is not routinely granted. They are
> usually posted 'NO TRESPASSING' or similar verbiage - but would also
> comprise farmers' fields and the curtilage of private houses. For
> these, unless I have a relationship with the landowner, I have no
> reason to expect access, and it would be regarded socially as being
> quite strange to request it without a compelling reason.  On a hiking
> map, I'd show these as 'out of bounds - off limits'.
> The New York City water supply bureau owns large parcels of land in
> this category - marked with uniform yellow NO TRESPASSING signs. that
> look like http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign4.jpg
> . I cannot show an OSM example because I haven't mapped them in OSM. I
> don't map that sort of cadastre; instead, for lands, I consider
> 'access=private' to be the default.
> Summary: "Ordinarily, no access to the general public"
> [2] 'access=customers'. There are a number of clubs, resorts, ski
> areas, and similar facilities that sell access (often labeled
> something like a 'grounds membership' - offering the right to cross
> the lands but none of the other club services). There is a reason that
> I might be authorized as a member of the general public. (Of course,
> 'customers' may also include guests of members, conference attendees
> at resorts, and similar prople.) Some government-owned lands fall
> under this category - for instance, there are government
> watershed-protection lands that ordinarily offer public access only in
> hunting season to hunters who've paid for the privilege.
> The New York City lands under this scheme are marked with
> special-purpose signs like
> http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign5.jpg .
> These signs differ from area to area, since so do the ways of
> obtaining the privilege to use the land.  I do see this as an actual
> business-customer relationship (with the government as the business).
> One such area is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422887495. It's not
> tagged 'access=customers' at present, but I'd have no objection to
> making the change.
> Summary: "Access only to transact with the public-facing business that
> occupies the land"
> [3] 'access=permissive'. This more often applies to ways than lands,
> but it there's no reason it couldn't apply to either.  Often, a
> landowner will retain control of access but offers the general public
> revocable rights to cross the land, usually in a specific corridor.
> There will ordinarily be the indicia of a hiking trail, and frequently
> there will be NO TRESPASSING signs on either side of the trail. Often,
> there will be standing rules; for instance, one trail that I access
> has a standing closure from October 15-December 31 of each year, plus
> occasional closures when members of the family that owns the land are
> hosting large gatherings.
> There are several trails that cross otherwise-posted New York City
> watershed lands. One example is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285951320#map=15/42.0850/-74.2496,
> which is on such lands between the end of the pavement on Jessup Road
> until it starts following the boundary of the Mount Tobias wild
> forest.  In the field, there are NO TRESPASSING signs on both sides of
> the trail corridor from Jessup Road to the property corner, and then
> NO TRESPASSING signs on the northeast side up to the junction with the
> trails to Warner Creek and to Phoenicia. I've also been in there and
> found that permission had been revoked temporarily, with signage that
> looked like http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/graphics/active-forestry-management-proejct.png.
> (The workers were friendly, and conducted my party through the
> closure.) I concede that the 'highway=footway' there may need
> 'foot=permissive', but I'm not going to trouble to retag unless I
> happen to find out whether a permanent easement exists for the trail.
> (If there's a deeded easement, then of course it's 'access=yes' and
> the closure was akin to closing a road for a brief construction
> project.)
> Summary: "Permission granted to (or traditionally not withheld from)
> the general public, but revocable at will".
> Side note: I also use this tagging for ways that are obviously used by
> the general public but equally obviously intrude on private land, when
> I'm not sure of the exact legalities. There are a fair number of
> carriage roads that are regularly used by hikers, equestrians and
> snowmobilists that are not on the official state maps, and whose legal
> status is unclear.
> [4] 'access=yes'. The lands and ways here are open to the general
> public, usually without restriction (except for things like needing a
> driver's license to drive, a fishing license to fish, and so on.) New
> York City also operates many of these.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424230668 is a specific example of
> one that I've used. They are signed like this
> http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign3.jpg - and
> it's a standard sign, that appears on at least a couple of hundred
> parcels.
> Obviously, things like the public parks, the state forests, and many
> of the Wild Forests and Wilderness Areas are also access=yes.
> Summary "The general public has a right to enter, with no advance formalities."
> [5] 'access=permit'. Now I come to the category that isn't covered:
> lands that are open to the public, for which permission will not be
> refused arbitrarily, They have a permission regime, but generally it's
> fee-free or carries only a nominal administrative cost, and there's no
> specific qualification required. (Some may have conditions such as
> refusing permits to those who have repeatedly broken the permit rules,
> or to convicted felons, but not anything arbitrary.) The system is
> ordinarily very straightforward - booking a date, or filling out
> contact information on a web site, or stopping at the desk at a ranger
> station and registering, or even just filling out a two-part form at a
> trailhead and dropping one part in a letter box. For the New York City
> lands, it's entering contact information on a web site, the permit is
> good for several years, and it applies to many dozens of sites. Those
> sites, too, have standard signage, looking like
> http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign2.jpg.  A
> sample area would be https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/481477548.
> Obtaining the permission - to me, and to a number of my colleagues
> here - doesn't feel like 'access=private' (or even
> 'access=customers'). It's public land. The public has a right of
> access. It's simply that there are particular hazards or particular
> fragile conditions that have prompted the government to impose a
> condition of obtaining the permit - which serves as proof that the
> holder was informed of the particular issues with accessing the area.
> There are also ways that ought to have similar tagging - and the
> poster who started this thread gave an example from Hungary.   One
> example from nearer to home for me is the Limekiln Lake - Cedar River
> Road, that runs through the corridor at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6370357. It's gated at both
> ends, with signs reading "STOP: All vehicles must register."  While
> there is a gatehouse http://i65.tinypic.com/2enq9ew.jpg, it is seldom
> staffed nowadays. Instead the protocol is ordinarily to get out, fill
> out the permit form at the kiosk, open the gate, drive through, and
> close the gate behind you. This scheme is mostly to ensure that
> drivers are informed of the specific hazards: the road is not paved,
> goes through a corridor between wilderness areas, has no cellular
> service and no facilities. Many drivers are not comfortable with
> driving in a region where there will be no ready way to summon help in
> the event of an accident.
> Summary: "The general public has a right to enter, but specific
> conditions require compliance with formalities in advance."
> Of the other access tags (private, customers, permissive, public), the
> one that is most similar to 'access=permit' is 'access=public.' It's
> not 'access restricted to customers', its 'special regulatory
> formalities in place because of fragile or hazardous conditions.'
> Rendering 'access=permit' with a different treatment on maps that are
> targeted for outdoor recreationists has obvious benefits, since the
> fact has obvious implications for trip planning. It's far from 'don't
> go here," as 'access=private' would be; and neither is it, "hike here
> only if you're staying at the resort/a member of the club/a hunter
> who's bought a pass". It's simply "watch out, there are formalities to
> be complied with." It's to be expected that a traveler will be able
> readily to comply with the formalities. In all the cases that I have
> in mind, it's a mere regulatory scheme on top of land that belongs to
> the public, that the public has the right to access.
> If you still find this discussion "too general", I'd wonder what
> specific information you need. In an earlier thread, there was one
> objector who asserted that the idea could be considered only if
> accompanied by a detailed schema of all possible permit conditions.
> Since the variety of conditions seems limited only by human
> imagination, this surely felt like a way of blocking the proposal by
> insisting on answers to unanswerable questions. I'm hoping that's not
> what you're after, and that there's really something missing in my
> reasoning.
> Please recall that this topic appears regularly - and that some people
> who agree with my position are well aware that the 'private',
> 'permissive' and 'customers' tags exist. Not all of us are entirely
> ignorant of existing tagging schemes. Some of us truly do believe that
> we have a condition here that is actually distinct from 'yes',
> 'private', 'permissive' and 'customers'.  In this posting, I've given
> concrete examples of where I'd use all five tags, on lands all
> belonging to the same government agency.

For me a 'licence' implies a certain level of skill or knowledge is required -
e.g. licences for driving a vehicle, having a gun all should have tests of skill and/or knowledge.
It is a formal process.

A permit, on the other hand,  does not carry the same level of authority and implied skill/knowledge as a licence.
It is usually a much less formal process to obtain a permit.

Permits for the  Overland Track are not
for customers - these people already have bought a 'pass' for National Parks, the permit is required for this specific track.
private - the permit can be purchased by anyone
public - you have to have the permit .. and most of the public don't have the permit
permissive - you have to have the permit ...

The permits are valid for a particular start date and are limited to ~34 people per start date to stop overcrowding the walkway and facilities along the trail.

I suppose I should be tagging the National Parks there with permit too, so as to cover the National Park Pass...


More information about the Tagging mailing list