[Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)
szembiketeam at gmail.com
Sun Jul 29 15:54:56 UTC 2018
2018.07.27. 23:47 keltezéssel, Kevin Kenny írta:
> 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
> 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.
>  '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"
>  '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"
>  '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
> 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
> 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.
>  '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
> 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."
>  '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
> 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.
Thanks for this detailed summary!
Essentially my opinion is the same so our biking map was made based on
this opinion. Only the name of tag was problematic, therefore I asked at
first the Hungarian mailing list, and now this international one.
_The most of the you was agreed that a new tag is required_ (or it is
already used by some of them)
When more than 3 people dispute, there is no consensus possible :)
Perhaps it would be worth _finding the majority opinion_ not rejecting
After it add it to the wiki (if someone doesn't want to use it, he won't)/
/My English knowledge is rather weak. It would be better if I were not
the one who wrote it. Warin?
/2018.07.27. 3:15, Warin /wrote:
I may well add it to the wiki, documents tags in the data base. While
small in number it does show what they are about and may help others to
use them appropriately rather than inappropriately or just ignore them
through ignorance. /
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging