Re: [Tagging] Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 21 lug 2016, alle ore 03:56, Kevin Kenny 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> What's the process for modifying the 'accepted'
> set of values? (I presume that simply wikifying it would be regarded as
> vandalism.) 


you can either make a formal proposal or modify the wiki page, pretending you 
are just adding documentation for an already used tag (given that there are 
more than 200 of these already in the db). If nobody is contesting the 
definition you add, the second way is faster ;-), also because now it has been 
publicly discussed on the tagging ml.
A problem could arise from people having used the access=permit tag differently 
than what you are defining now, on the other hand they could have already added 
docu before to avoid it.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process


turns out, there are some mentions of this in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/License
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:permit
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:access#Specific_Permits
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:access#What_should_the_tag_be_for_when_a_permit_is_required_for_access.2Fuse.3F
(and other mentions of access=permit on this talk page)
There are also some user pages mentioning it: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=access%3Dpermit=Special%3ASearch=Go

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> Yep. I asked a similar question at
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028504.html
> but there was no particular consensus.
>
> access=permit seems to have moderate usage (slightly more than =license,
> which is in any case misspelled) so I'd go for that.


You've just demonstrated that this is a recurring issue. "You have to get
permission, but permission will not ordinarily be refused" is a common
situation here in the US. What's the process for modifying the 'accepted'
set of values? (I presume that simply wikifying it would be regarded as
vandalism.)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I just want to be able to look at my map and answer the 
> quick question, "is there red tape that I have to plan for 
> before I plan a trip here?"

Yep. I asked a similar question at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028504.html
but there was no particular consensus.

access=permit seems to have moderate usage (slightly more than =license,
which is in any case misspelled) so I'd go for that.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/How-to-tag-public-lands-that-are-accessed-by-permit-tp5878730p5878819.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Kevin Kenny]

Oops, accidentally sent this from the wrong mailbox again.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> Also, we aren't being consistent with such a strict definition.  There
> are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
> That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
> rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
> reasonable times.  So technically they should perhaps be permissive, but
> really that does not match.  Arguably we should have
> access=public_invited, which is subtly different from yes in that there
> is no legal right.  But I think leaving them untagged (and thus yes) is
> just fine and it's a problem that doesn't need addressing.
>

I thought that the issue of shopping malls was what 'access=customers'
was invented to handle.

But "access=customers" doesn't fit very well with the parks that I've
been working on.

I just want to be able to look at my map and answer the quick
question, "is there red tape that I have to plan for before I
plan a trip here?" If the answer is "yes," I can look at other
sources to find out what the requirements are - they may be as
simple as tucking my New York City access card in my pack,
or they may involve trying to book a specific date, or even
entering a permit lottery months in advance. In the vast majority
of places where I go, it's simply filling out a form on a website
or stopping off at a ranger station to do a little paperwork.

It's common in American law to say that something
"requires permission" when the permission is granted, always,
by policy, and the real requirement is that you request it,
as a means of notifying the authorities of your intentions.
We write laws that say, "thou shalt not," and then designate
the government agency that has the authority to waive the
law. Many "thou shalt not"s are really, "if you're planning
to do this, we really, really want to review your plans
first," and I've done a good many things with paperwork
that has titles like "Temporary Revocable Permit" or
"Special Temporary Operating Authority."

At this point, I'm not trying to encode all of the Ptolemaic
epicycles that tend to accrete on a permitting system. I'm willing to
say "access=permit foot=yes permit:website=..." as an
oversimplification of some actual regulation like:

"the facility charges horseback riders, drivers and passengers in
motor vehicles a fee for entry during the period that commences on the
Friday before the fourth Monday in May and ends on the second Monday
in October.  Entry on foot or by bicycle is free of charge at all
times, but a fee may be charged for use of the bathhouse and swimming
beach or for rental of a campsite.  Outside the listed dates, entry is
free but the bathhouse, boat launch and swimming beach are closed.
Fees are waived for New York State residents age 62 and over and for
holders of an Empire Passport access permit. The waiver does not apply
to campsite rental.  Roads are not maintained in winter and may be
accessible only by snowshoes, skis or snowmobile. Snowshoes or skis
are required at any time that there is more than an 8 inches (20 cm)
of snow on the trails. Snowmobiles and horses may be taken
only on trails designated for their use."

because someone seeing 'access=permit' can look on the web site for
the details.

I also would propose to use 'access=permit' (or whatever other consensus
emerges) for private lands whose owners participate in the ASK program
.
I find that even when a landowner doesn't participate in the program
(yet), the permission card 
is a valuable tool - it looks governmental,
and reminds the owner that he's generally NOT opening himself
to liability by giving permission (which is the usual reason to refuse).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[Kevin Kenny]

Oops - sent this message from the wrong mailbox and it either bounced or
got flagged for moderation.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Kenny 
Date: Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 


On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Your examples feel like private land to me. Except for the one with the
> bull...
>
> Maybe this would help me see the distinction:
>
> How much trouble are you in, if you enter without explicit permission? Are
> you (in theory at least) risking a fine? Would it be a criminal or
> statutory offence, or a civil wrong against the landowner? Or are there no
> sanctions? How likely are you to get caught? If a policeman challenges you
> for something, will they ask to see your permit?
>

The last set of examples represent the spectrum of how I interpret
'access=private' - and I'm entirely comfortable with having
'access=private' for all of them.

By contrast, the 'access=permit' is, "I have to stop at the kiosk on the
way by and fill out my registration card" or "I have to make sure to have
my New York City hiker card in my pack and hang the parking tag in my car"
(both of which are free, and on the first trip I needed them, I printed
them from the web site the night before).

If I'm in the High Peaks and encounter a ranger, he will indeed ask to see
my permit (and my bear canister). If I recall correctly from people who've
gotten caught, the fine is about $300 - the judge and prosecutor have some
discretion. The relevant regulation is here
.


But the real distinction is - once I've complied with all the formalities,
they have to give me permission. That's totally unlike a private landowner,
who can refuse permission for any reason or no reason. And the formalities
are minimal.

That distinction is important enough that most trail maps here show the two
types of regions differently: "government land, permission required",
rather than "private land, keep out". And on my own maps, I want to follow
that convention and render them differently.

Instead of trying to suggest a tagging scheme to allow me to do what I
want, you are asserting that I shouldn't want it. You're not helping me
come up with a way to tag these two situations differently, and I assure
you that they are very different to any American hiker. Instead, you are
asserting that they are the same, and I simply should not want there to be
a difference. That is not going to help me to move forward.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging