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

[Szem]

Hi,
I begun to use the "permit" tag, what is the correct tagging for these 
categories?


- Roads found in Waterworks area (You could get permit only for biking 
and walking, no cars except for their own ones)
access=private, motor_vehicle / vehicle = private ? bicycle=permit, 
foot=permit, horse=no


- Roads on the embankments (By any motor vehicle without permission is 
forbidden, except for their own ones, other access is free)
access= private, motor_vehicle / vehicle =permit ? foot=yes, horse=yes, 
bicycle=yes,


- Roads managed by Hunting Association, wildlife conservation areas 
(Crossing by any vehicle without permission is forbidden, except for 
their own ones):
access= private, motor_vehicle / vehicle = permit, foot=yes, 
horse=permit, bicycle= permit


Thanks,
Szem

2018.08.09. 21:04 keltezéssel, Szem írta:
I've done it. I've translated all the main paraghraphs into Hungarian 
and sent the links of proposal page and others to 
openstreetmap-hungary list. I hope more mappers are going to use the 
access=permit tag.


2018.08.07. 22:57 keltezéssel, Martin Koppenhoefer írta:


sent from a phone


On 7. Aug 2018, at 21:53, Szem  wrote:

How can I support it to make progress?


use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.


Cheers,
Martin

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

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

[Szem]

I've done it. I've translated all the main paraghraphs into Hungarian 
and sent the links of proposal page and others to openstreetmap-hungary 
list. I hope more mappers are going to use the access=permit tag.


2018.08.07. 22:57 keltezéssel, Martin Koppenhoefer írta:


sent from a phone


On 7. Aug 2018, at 21:53, Szem  wrote:

How can I support it to make progress?


use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.


Cheers,
Martin

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


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Aug 2018, at 19:42, Szem  wrote:
> 
> Other mappers and me are just an absolute minimum, negligible part of the 
> whole community. Until this is not included in the wiki, it is hardly known 
> by anyone.


it is already included in the wiki, there’s the proposal linked above.

If there isn’t yet, you could add a link to the proposal from the access page 
in the “See also” section

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

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

[Adam Franco]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> I haven't forgotten. I'm just going through a crunch time at work, and
> haven't had time to draft the thing formally.
>

As mentioned by Paul earlier in this thread, it looks like you already put
together a pretty solid draft two years ago (assuming you are ke9tv in the
wiki as well):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit

Reading through this proposal it looks like it captures most of what has
been discussed in this thread so far. Maybe it just needs a once over to
ensure that it all still fits.

Alternatively, maybe you meant drafting a formal *announcement* of the
proposal. :-)

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 10:11 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
>  wrote:
> >
> > Yep, Kevin's proposal solves a lot of problems.
> >
> > Let's try to push it along & get it approved.
>
> I haven't forgotten. I'm just going through a crunch time at work, and
> haven't had time to draft the thing formally.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 10:11 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
>
> Yep, Kevin's proposal solves a lot of problems.
>
> Let's try to push it along & get it approved.

I haven't forgotten. I'm just going through a crunch time at work, and
haven't had time to draft the thing formally.

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

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

[Szem]

Other mappers and me are just an absolute minimum, negligible part of 
the whole community. Until this is not included in the wiki, it is 
hardly known by anyone.
Someone said that this is not a condition for appearance or I 
misunderstoodsg?


Szem

2018.08.07. 22:57 keltezéssel, Martin Koppenhoefer írta:


sent from a phone


On 7. Aug 2018, at 21:53, Szem  wrote:

How can I support it to make progress?


use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.


Cheers,
Martin

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


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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Yep, Kevin's proposal solves a lot of problems.

Let's try to push it along & get it approved.

Thanks

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

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

[Dave Swarthout]

> use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.

I agree.

And I have already used such tagging for a few lakes in Alaska that require
exactly the sort of permit Kevin is talking about. The permit to fish those
lakes is more or less a formality; anybody can get one and they are free of
charge — you just have to go through the process to obtain it before you
can go fishing.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:58 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 7. Aug 2018, at 21:53, Szem  wrote:
> >
> > How can I support it to make progress?
>
>
> use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[marc marc]

Le 08. 08. 18 à 00:59, Dave Swarthout a écrit :
>  > use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.

and/or understand the criticisms and try to improve the proposal.
because when I read in a message that everyone approved... either a lot 
of messages are lost, or it's vapoware...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Aug 2018, at 21:53, Szem  wrote:
> 
> How can I support it to make progress?


use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.


Cheers,
Martin

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Szem  wrote:

> I've tried and understand more or less. How can I support it to make
> progress?
>

Mention the page on this list.  We've done that.

Ask the list for suggestions/comments.

After a couple of weeks of that tell the list you're opening voting and
open the voting.  Some would say you should
wait for longer before voting, but this is an old proposal that has been
discussed before.

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

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

[Szem]

Sorry I'm so stupid, but what link I could +1

2018.08.07. 21:58 keltezéssel, Javier Sánchez Portero írta:

+1 for access=permit
I support it

Regards, Javier

El mar., 7 ago. 2018 20:38, Paul Allen > escribió:


On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Szem mailto:szembiket...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks.I have three problems: it's a huge amount of texts :(
and I do not speak english so good :(( and I do not understand
truly the correlation of this method and writing the wiki :(((
So what's the next?


Feed the text through google translate.  Because it's what you
were asking for.  He used
"permit" rather than "licence" or "authorization" but he explains
why.  That page is what you wanted to
write.  Everything has already been done.  Two years ago.  And
gone nowhere.

There is no point you writing a proposal because that proposal
already exists.  So try to drum up support for
that existing proposal or forget about the whole idea.

-- 
Paul


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


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

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

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

+1 for access=permit
I support it

Regards, Javier

El mar., 7 ago. 2018 20:38, Paul Allen  escribió:

> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Szem  wrote:
>
>> Thanks. I have three problems: it's a huge amount of texts :( and I do
>> not speak english so good :(( and I do not understand truly the correlation
>> of this method and writing the wiki :(((
>> So what's the next?
>>
>
> Feed the text through google translate.  Because it's what you were asking
> for.  He used
> "permit" rather than "licence" or "authorization" but he explains why.
> That page is what you wanted to
> write.  Everything has already been done.  Two years ago.  And gone
> nowhere.
>
> There is no point you writing a proposal because that proposal already
> exists.  So try to drum up support for
> that existing proposal or forget about the whole idea.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Szem]

I've tried and understand more or less. How can I support it to make 
progress?


2018.08.07. 21:37 keltezéssel, Paul Allen írta:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Szem > wrote:


Thanks.I have three problems: it's a huge amount of texts :( and I
do not speak english so good :(( and I do not understand truly the
correlation of this method and writing the wiki :(((
So what's the next?


Feed the text through google translate.  Because it's what you were 
asking for.  He used
"permit" rather than "licence" or "authorization" but he explains 
why.  That page is what you wanted to
write.  Everything has already been done.  Two years ago.  And gone 
nowhere.


There is no point you writing a proposal because that proposal already 
exists.  So try to drum up support for

that existing proposal or forget about the whole idea.

--
Paul


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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Szem  wrote:

> Thanks. I have three problems: it's a huge amount of texts :( and I do
> not speak english so good :(( and I do not understand truly the correlation
> of this method and writing the wiki :(((
> So what's the next?
>

Feed the text through google translate.  Because it's what you were asking
for.  He used
"permit" rather than "licence" or "authorization" but he explains why.
That page is what you wanted to
write.  Everything has already been done.  Two years ago.  And gone nowhere.

There is no point you writing a proposal because that proposal already
exists.  So try to drum up support for
that existing proposal or forget about the whole idea.

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

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

[Szem]

Thanks.I have three problems: it's a huge amount of texts :( and I do 
not speak english so good :(( and I do not understand truly the 
correlation of this method and writing the wiki :(((

So what's the next?

2018.08.07. 20:56 keltezéssel, Paul Allen írta:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Szem > wrote:


I've never done this before too. If I can help anyone I'll try...


I decided to start off a proposal page for you to flesh out.  And when 
I tried, I found it was already there.  Take a look at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit  
It appears that ke9tv has already done

everything you could wish for, and more.

Note, however, the closing paragraph on that page:

This general function has been requested repeatedly. Several topics on 
the discussion page for the *access* key 
 refer to it. It 
was also the subject of a lengthy recent thread 
 
on the 'Tagging' mailing list. No existing tagging scheme appears to 
suffice for the desired function.


It's déjà// vu all over again...

--
Paul


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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Szem  wrote:

> I've never done this before too. If I can help anyone I'll try...
>

I decided to start off a proposal page for you to flesh out.  And when I
tried, I found it was already there.  Take a look at
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit  It
appears that ke9tv has already done
everything you could wish for, and more.

Note, however, the closing paragraph on that page:

This general function has been requested repeatedly. Several topics on
the discussion
page for the *access* key
 refer to it. It was
also the subject of a lengthy recent thread

on the 'Tagging' mailing list. No existing tagging scheme appears to
suffice for the desired function.

It's déjà vu all over again...

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

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

[Szem]

I've never done this before too. If I can help anyone I'll try...
Szem

2018.08.02. 20:35 keltezéssel, Paul Allen írta:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Kevin Kenny 
mailto:kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Is there a documented process for putting a proposal?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process

I'm certainly willing to draft the text, although I'm not going to
be able to do it before the weekend. Can someone else run the
proposal process or at least guide me through it?


I'm a proposal virgin too.  I'll let you get deflowered this time around.

--
Paul


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

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

[Andrew Hain]

It’s not absolutely necessary but you get the chance of some feedback from 
other OSM users that you may appreciate later if you do it, together with the 
chance to advertise the tagging scheme to other mappers or data consumers. 
Think of it as your call, there are other ways especially for intrinsically 
local tags.

--
Andrew

From: Szem 
Sent: 02 August 2018 20:35
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

I would just ask that this proposal process is absolutely necessary? (I
don't want to bypass it simply I don't know)

2018.08.02. 21:25 keltezéssel, Marc Gemis írta:
> Kevin,
>
> Just to prepare you a bit: it's very well possible that you will get
> objections very late in the approval process. eg. during the voting
> phase from people that never discussed the tag before. We've seen this
> e.g. with amenity/tourism=reception(_desk), where people just ignored
> all previous discussion on the mailing list and the discussion page.
>
> I wish you good luck with your proposal though.
>
> m.
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:11 PM Kevin Kenny  
> wrote:
>> Is there a documented process for putting a proposal? I'm certainly willing 
>> to draft the text, although I'm not going to be able to do it before the 
>> weekend. Can someone else run the proposal process or at least guide me 
>> through it?
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 12:55 PM Szem  wrote:
>>> A couple of us have said their opinion.
>>> It seems to me nobody have said the access=permit tag is useless.
>>> And now, what is the next step? Worldwide the 97% of editors have not read 
>>> this mailing list. Without written a short explanation in the wiki only a 
>>> few editor will use it, or they will use a lot of other form.
>>>
>>> (There would be no greater agreement if we would analyze e.g. 
>>> access=permessive tag…)
>>>
>>>   Szem
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

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

[Szem]

I would just ask that this proposal process is absolutely necessary? (I 
don't want to bypass it simply I don't know)


2018.08.02. 21:25 keltezéssel, Marc Gemis írta:

Kevin,

Just to prepare you a bit: it's very well possible that you will get
objections very late in the approval process. eg. during the voting
phase from people that never discussed the tag before. We've seen this
e.g. with amenity/tourism=reception(_desk), where people just ignored
all previous discussion on the mailing list and the discussion page.

I wish you good luck with your proposal though.

m.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:11 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

Is there a documented process for putting a proposal? I'm certainly willing to 
draft the text, although I'm not going to be able to do it before the weekend. 
Can someone else run the proposal process or at least guide me through it?

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 12:55 PM Szem  wrote:

A couple of us have said their opinion.
It seems to me nobody have said the access=permit tag is useless.
And now, what is the next step? Worldwide the 97% of editors have not read this 
mailing list. Without written a short explanation in the wiki only a few editor 
will use it, or they will use a lot of other form.

(There would be no greater agreement if we would analyze e.g. access=permessive 
tag…)

  Szem

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

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

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


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

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

[Marc Gemis]

Kevin,

Just to prepare you a bit: it's very well possible that you will get
objections very late in the approval process. eg. during the voting
phase from people that never discussed the tag before. We've seen this
e.g. with amenity/tourism=reception(_desk), where people just ignored
all previous discussion on the mailing list and the discussion page.

I wish you good luck with your proposal though.

m.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:11 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
> Is there a documented process for putting a proposal? I'm certainly willing 
> to draft the text, although I'm not going to be able to do it before the 
> weekend. Can someone else run the proposal process or at least guide me 
> through it?
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 12:55 PM Szem  wrote:
>>
>> A couple of us have said their opinion.
>> It seems to me nobody have said the access=permit tag is useless.
>> And now, what is the next step? Worldwide the 97% of editors have not read 
>> this mailing list. Without written a short explanation in the wiki only a 
>> few editor will use it, or they will use a lot of other form.
>>
>> (There would be no greater agreement if we would analyze e.g. 
>> access=permessive tag…)
>>
>>  Szem
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> Is there a documented process for putting a proposal?
>

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process


> I'm certainly willing to draft the text, although I'm not going to be able
> to do it before the weekend. Can someone else run the proposal process or
> at least guide me through it?
>

I'm a proposal virgin too.  I'll let you get deflowered this time around.

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

Is there a documented process for putting a proposal? I'm certainly willing
to draft the text, although I'm not going to be able to do it before the
weekend. Can someone else run the proposal process or at least guide me
through it?

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 12:55 PM Szem  wrote:

> A couple of us have said their opinion.
> It seems to me nobody have said the access=permit tag is useless.
> And now, what is the next step? Worldwide the 97% of editors have not read
> this mailing list. Without written a short explanation in the wiki only a
> few editor will use it, or they will use a lot of other form.
>
> (There would be no greater agreement if we would analyze e.g. 
> access=permessive
> tag…)
>
>  Szem
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Szem]

A couple of us have said their opinion.
It seems to me nobody have said the access=permit tag is useless.
And now, what is the next step? Worldwide the 97% of editors have not 
read this mailing list. Without written a short explanation in the wiki 
only a few editor will use it, or they will use a lot of other form.


(There would be no greater agreement if we would analyze e.g. 
access=permessive tag...)


 Szem

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:56 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> I would make the distinction bub from a map-data end-user's point of view: 
> can I walk/drive up to the place and obtain a permit on the fly, with or 
> without paying a "fee". The on-the-fly payment may include payment of 
> membership of some kind on first entry, or similar arrangements. If access 
> requires prior membership in a club or an association, I would suggest to use 
> access=members. Admittedly there is a soft border with "customers", for 
> example in case of access to the car park of shops that requires membership 
> (e.g. REI in the US).

You're right, that's certainly a consideration. In my mind, it's at
the next level after 'is permission routinely offered to the general
public, or do I have to have a reason for being there?'

One use case for wanting to know that:  Let's say that I want to plan
a trip to climb North Dome, Balsam Mountain and Mount Sherrill - which
cluster around https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357607470. None of
these has an established trail. I can access North Dome from the north
by one of several narrow strips of foot=yes land that border County
Road #6. I cannot access from the south over the abandoned logging
road, because Camp Timber Lake is access=members and does NOT welcome
visitors. I can access Balsam Mountain from CR6 to the north as long
as I've brought my (free of cost) permission card, because the general
public routinely has access to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6304793. In fact, the city
recently changed that unit from foot=permit to foot=yes, so I don't
even need to remember the card.

For what it's worth, on the actual trip, I started from
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/292018893, followed the survey line
north of North Dome until it intersected the northern spur of the
mountain, and got to the summit from there, and eventually emerged at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20093167. That way is mismapped
(thanks, TIGER!), but my GPS was wonky just then, and I haven't been
back down that way since, so I left it alone. It's a service way that
goes to a shaft associated with the water tunnel. There's parking for
climbers and hunters there.

I'm a long way from mapping 'access=members' recreational areas.  I
have my hands full with public ones!

By the way, REI doesn't require a membership to enter or to shop (and
incidentally sells the membership in-store). Most shoppers there are
members, because there are discounts, dividends, and extended
warranties on purchases that they find to be worth the small fee for
becoming a member. But there are stores with the model that you
imagine - usually they're wholesalers that aren't set up to collect
general sales tax, so require their customers to have a membership
(with a business licence and reseller number on file). Some of these
have branched out into direct-to-consumer sales but continue a
membership requirement.

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

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

[Volker Schmidt]

I would make the distinction bub from a map-data end-user's point of view:
can I walk/drive up to the place and obtain a permit on the fly, with or
without paying a "fee". The on-the-fly payment may include payment of
membership of some kind on first entry, or similar arrangements. If access
requires prior membership in a club or an association, I would suggest to
use access=members. Admittedly there is a soft border with "customers", for
example in case of access to the car park of shops that requires membership
(e.g. REI in the US).

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, 00:46 marc marc,  wrote:

> Le 29. 07. 18 à 22:35, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>
> >> On 27. Jul 2018, at 17:53, marc marc wrote:
> >> I didn't understand how getting a license in your example is different
> >> from getting a license from a sports club.
>
> > I would understand that the permit will be obtained by everybody
> following the application rules, while the sports club doesn’t give you a
> “license”, it requires you to be a member, where it is usually at the
> discretion of the other members if they take you or not.
>
> maybe for a golf sport club.
> but for all other sport club I have or I had be a member,
> no other members have to (dis)agree or not.
> I only need to fill a form, follow the rule and sometime pay a fee
>
> So I now understand that what somebody call a permit is
> a license for somebody else :)
>
>  > I would certainly not call the visitors “customers of the castle”.
>  > Similarly, the members of a sports club are not “customers”
>
> so who are the customers of a POI ?
> how to map a "for customers only" ?
> I often see this tagged as "access=customers"
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[marc marc]

Le 29. 07. 18 à 22:35, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :

>> On 27. Jul 2018, at 17:53, marc marc wrote:
>> I didn't understand how getting a license in your example is different
>> from getting a license from a sports club.

> I would understand that the permit will be obtained by everybody following 
> the application rules, while the sports club doesn’t give you a “license”, it 
> requires you to be a member, where it is usually at the discretion of the 
> other members if they take you or not.

maybe for a golf sport club.
but for all other sport club I have or I had be a member,
no other members have to (dis)agree or not.
I only need to fill a form, follow the rule and sometime pay a fee

So I now understand that what somebody call a permit is
a license for somebody else :)

 > I would certainly not call the visitors “customers of the castle”.
 > Similarly, the members of a sports club are not “customers”

so who are the customers of a POI ?
how to map a "for customers only" ?
I often see this tagged as "access=customers"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Jul 2018, at 17:53, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> I didn't understand how getting a license in your example is different 
> from getting a license from a sports club.


I would understand that the permit will be obtained by everybody following the 
application rules, while the sports club doesn’t give you a “license”, it 
requires you to be a member, where it is usually at the discretion of the other 
members if they take you or not.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Jul 2018, at 17:53, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> what _I_ was saying is that despite your detailed explanations,
> i still have not understood how the case you describe is different from 
> access=customers. some paths in the park of a castle are limited to the 
> customer of the castle, some sports facilities are limited to members
> of the sports club.


In the case of a castle which requires to pay an admission fee, I would 
certainly not call the visitors “customers of the castle”.
Similarly, the members of a sports club are not “customers”. I would not add 
access restrictions to the castle but add a fee tag, and for the sports club I 
would use “private”.



the fact of having to pay or not, is indicated
> 
> by the key fee=*

+1

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

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

[Szem]

2018.07.27. 23:47 keltezéssel, Kevin Kenny írta:

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:54 AM marc marc  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 

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

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 12:52 AM, Alan Grant  wrote:

Obtaining a TV licence in the UK or Ireland does not require demonstrating
> the ability to operate a television!
>

To understand this, you need to understand the history of the thing.
Before there were televisions there were
radios.  In the early days of radios, the circuitry was very primitive.
The way they could be sensitive enough to
receive weak signals was a form of positive feedback known as
"regeneration."  The user controlled the amount
of regeneration by turning a control knob.  The more regeneration, the more
sensitive the radio and the weaker the
signal it could pick up.  Increase the regeneration too much and the
positive feedback caused the RF amplifier to
oscillate - turning it from a receiver to a transmitter.  A careless person
could disrupt reception for several houses
in a street.

So in the early days of radio a radio licence really was a licence.  You
learned how to work your radio correctly
(it was not a very difficult lesson) or your licence was taken away and you
were not permitted to have another one.
The licence fee also funded the operation of the BBC.  The radio licence
served two purposes: to prevent idiots
ruining radio reception for those around them and to fund the radio
broadcasts.

Technology advanced.  Even before the advent of TV, the introduction of
superhet (supersonic heterodyne)
circuitry replaced regenerative circuitry.  It cost more than regenerative
circuitry but gave increased sensitivity
and also prevented idiots causing problems for others.  The only purpose
the licence then served was to fund
the BBC.  But rather than call it a radio tax they continued to call it a
licence so people were more likely to pay
it.

TV came along and it too had a licence (really a tax) to fund the BBC.
Special offer: buy a TV licence and it
covers radios too!  Eventually they decided it was too hard to keep track
of radios, so the radio licence (= tax)
was dropped but the TV licence (= tax) remains.

The TV licence isn't really a licence, it's a tax.  But its name derives
from the time when you really did need a
licence to operate a radio, a licence which could be taken away if you were
an idiot.

Long story short: in most cases a permit is different from a licence, but
there are historical anomalies in the
nomenclature.

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

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

[Alan Grant]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, 00:28 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Obtaining a TV licence in the UK or Ireland does not require demonstrating
the ability to operate a television! I don't think the "less formal"
distinction holds either - obtaining a residence permit or an employment
permit is often a very formal process.

So I really don't think there is any systematic distinction to be drawn
between permit and license/licence. I think I would slightly favour licence
because potential confusion between licence and license is less important
than between permit and permissive - in the former case the intention is
obvious, whereas if someone mixes up permit and permissive there is no way
for other mappers to know. That is a minor point though, either way I think
this is a useful access category.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

On 28/07/18 07:47, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:54 AM marc marc  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 

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:54 AM marc marc  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

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

[Szem]

2018.07.27. 3:15 keltezéssel, Warin írta:
...

Just use the tag. 245 in the data base now.

As for fees they can be tagged with fee= tag
As for the permit conditions .. well you could just tag permit=*

I'd just do it. Overpass turbo shows a wide distribution around the 
world.

It makes much more sense that some tags already on the wiki.

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.



Thanks for everybody's reply.
Adding to the wiki is a possible solution... If it happens I will write 
to our mailing list, to begin to use.
Only a few things: I don't want to start an editors war :) But I don't 
understand, why is a bad idea to make a new tag especially there are 
several other "permission is required" roads exist.
The word "license / authorization" was only an idea, I knew the "permit" 
is the best one, but I thought it's similar to "permissive".
The most important thing that these road are basically different to 
others and their length are hundreds of kilometers.


We've made a biking map to show some different type of roads
A part of the legend of the map (public roads)

Meaning of the columns:
normal roads - cycling routes on roads (icn - lcn) - proposed cycling 
routes - *permission is required* - destination traffic - cycling is 
forbidden


And here is part of the map (on the right "private" road)

/You could delete these images, before your answer to decrease the size/

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

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

[marc marc]

Le 27. 07. 18 à 02:45, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:40 PM marc marc  wrote:
>> Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:39, Szem a écrit :
>> imho *=licence is included in the current meaning of *=customers
> 
> I understand that you are entirely convinced that your personal view
> is the only correct one.

it's certainly not the right way to start a discussion under the guise 
that someone who's not from your point of view is an egocentric idiot
who was waiting for your arrival to finally understand the world

what _I_ was saying is that despite your detailed explanations,
i still have not understood how the case you describe is different from 
access=customers. some paths in the park of a castle are limited to the 
customer of the castle, some sports facilities are limited to members
of the sports club. the fact of having to pay or not, is indicated
by the key fee=*
I didn't understand how getting a license in your example is different 
from getting a license from a sports club.

You can of course consider that all those who are not of your opinion 
not understood anything... or perhaps you ask if your opinion is not as 
perfect as you think it is.
You are of course free to use any tag, including access=permit and also 
free to create a wiki page to describe the use you make of it.
But if so many people have trouble understanding your need,
maybe you need is poorly explained or misclassified and
you can't expect to have much end use for this data.
But after all , it won't be the first time or the last time
that information in osm is unusable or 'll be used as an alias
of another well known/described value :-s

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

> "The data model is fine. Fix your country!"

I never implied that.
but a good data model is the one that replicates why such case inquires 
such value..
if your case produce 4 different values depending of the mapper without 
rational argument to decide, then the description of your case does not 
correspond to what we hope from a good model.

perhaps it is necessary to improve the model to distinguish between
"the customer of an infrastructure has a right (possibly paying)
to use it one usecase by one" and "the customer of an infrastructure 
which has made the formalities to have a right for a certain period
of time aka a licence or an abonement or a membership"
But I'm not sure that this type of different has to be in the access 
key. maybe it's something for a subtag or in the fee tag.
a bit like we have parking with subscription or a mandatory member card 
vs a parking with a hourly fee open to everyone without any before-use 
administrative formality.
For "residential permit" parking, some use parking:condition
a not an access tag on the amenity=parking.

Hope this 'll help you.. in case you request an opignon and not
only a "I use it and don't care of your reply if you don't agree"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Dave Swarthout]

Here we go again.

I have used access=permit in several instances. I'm clear on what it means
and the differences between the various access tags. I'm using the tag and
unless someone shows me a good reason why such tagging is proven incorrect
in some way, I'll continue to use it.

I'm betting this thread will end up like the others, mired in differing
opinions with no consensus possible.

Mateusz wrote:  "Tagging mailing list is not a decision making
comiite [sic]. It is a place to get a feedback."

There you go. I agree fully. You are never going to find consensus on this
list so go ahead and use the tags.

Cheers,

Dave

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 26. Jul 2018, at 19:39, Szem  wrote:
>
> - Roads on the embankments (The longest ones in category. Driving by car
> without permission is forbidden, other access is free. Some roads on the
> embankments are free access):
> The access tags are: access= private, foot=yes, horse=yes, motor_vehicle /
> vehicle? =private, bicycle=yes, *motorcar=license, motorcycle=license*
>
>
>
> if other access is free and restrictions only apply  to motorcars (or
> more likely motor vehicles), you should not put access=private, and you
> will not need *=yes (it’s the default), you can put motor_vehicle=private
> (or permit if this makes more sense), and be done. More concise, clearer
> and more correct (because with access=private you exclude everybody you did
> not even know about)
>
>
> Also from my understanding, if someone can access the way under whatever
> condition the value can never be “no”.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jul 2018, at 19:39, Szem  wrote:
> 
> - Roads on the embankments (The longest ones in category. Driving by car 
> without permission is forbidden, other access is free. Some roads on the 
> embankments are free access):
> The access tags are: access= private, foot=yes, horse=yes, motor_vehicle / 
> vehicle? =private, bicycle=yes, motorcar=license, motorcycle=license


if other access is free and restrictions only apply  to motorcars (or more 
likely motor vehicles), you should not put access=private, and you will not 
need *=yes (it’s the default), you can put motor_vehicle=private (or permit if 
this makes more sense), and be done. More concise, clearer and more correct 
(because with access=private you exclude everybody you did not even know about)


Also from my understanding, if someone can access the way under whatever 
condition the value can never be “no”.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jul 2018, at 19:39, Szem  wrote:
> 
> There is a significant difference compared to existing values (private, 
> permissive), because mostly anyone can ask permission for these roads (what 
> you get), but without it, entry is forbidden. That's why I've thought needs a 
> new tag.


what do you mean by “mostly everybody”, is it everybody or are there 
exclusions? Is it about collecting application fees or who is excluded? In 
Italy we’re using “private” if you need an individual permission, regardless 
how easy or difficult it is to get it. 

If you decide you still need a new tag, I would not use the term “license” 
(sounds as if you need a driving license), I would use something like 
“permit_holders”

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

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

[José G Moya Y .]

 Hi!

For the rest of us

Like Kevin, I followed this email list for a couple years. The first case I
read about was the lakes of Alaska (Sept 21st 2017), but I'm sure there
were more threads on this matter before.

For cases where you get your permit on the entrance of a national park or
similar, I understand "access=customers" is fine, since, as you'll do in a
theme park, you have to make a reservation and buy tickets, in some cases
limited to a few visitors. In this I agree with Marc.

For cases where there is not obvious "entrance gate" I'm not sure of how
you would map it.

An example would be Cíes Islands in Galicia, Spain, where limited visitors
are allowed every day -- "licences" are usually included with boat tickets,
but last year there was an scandal when government discovered boat tickets
overpassed the allowed number of licences. ¿Is it access=customers? ¿Are
the customers of the many boat companies travelling to Cíes also the
customers of the Cíes National Park?

Also, there is the case of the closed city centres, "Low Emission Zones",
discused in another thread, I don't recall the outcome of the thread on Low
Emission Zones, just that they have their own tag. despite they could be
tagged as "private" or "customers" if we follow the line of thought of Marc
and most people on this list. Their rules are similar to what you could
consider a special case of "permit" or "licence". In current Madrid LEZ,
permit is granted to residents, hotel hostages, some kinds of vehicles
(including high-polluting motorcycles) and people who has requested a
permit negotiated by an area resident. The rules will change next November,
but I think the situation will be similar.

P.D. Javier, remember OSM uses British English, so "licence" would be
preferred to "license".

Yours,

José

2018-07-27 9:25 GMT+02:00 Javier Sánchez Portero :

> What's about access=license? For me it has the same meaning. It has 245
> uses and is documented https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dlicense.
>
> Javier
>
>
> 2018-07-27 6:22 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> 27. Lipiec 2018 03:38 od t...@fitchdesign.com:
>>
>>
>> My take is to toss an idea/problem into the list and see if there is
>> anything that comes back in the first few days that alters your opinion on
>> how to tag. Sometimes there are good suggestions that can improve your
>> thinking on how something should be tagged so it is worth submitting.
>>
>>
>> Tagging mailing list is not a decision making comiite. It is a place to
>> get a feedback.
>>
>>
>> I remember some cases with "this is a bad idea" consensus, for some
>> really poor ideas.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

What's about access=license? For me it has the same meaning. It has 245
uses and is documented
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dlicense.

Javier


2018-07-27 6:22 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 27. Lipiec 2018 03:38 od t...@fitchdesign.com:
>
>
> My take is to toss an idea/problem into the list and see if there is
> anything that comes back in the first few days that alters your opinion on
> how to tag. Sometimes there are good suggestions that can improve your
> thinking on how something should be tagged so it is worth submitting.
>
>
> Tagging mailing list is not a decision making comiite. It is a place to
> get a feedback.
>
>
> I remember some cases with "this is a bad idea" consensus, for some really
> poor ideas.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27. Lipiec 2018 03:38 od t...@fitchdesign.com :

>
> My take is to toss an idea/problem into the list and see if there is anything 
> that comes back in the first few days that alters your opinion on how to tag. 
> Sometimes there are good suggestions that can improve your thinking on how 
> something should be tagged so it is worth submitting.




Tagging mailing list is not a decision making comiite. It is a place to get a 
feedback.




I remember some cases with "this is a bad idea" consensus, for some really poor 
ideas.

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

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

[Warin]

On 27/07/18 11:38, Tod Fitch wrote:

On Jul 26, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on the same
subject that preceded it - was that there was no consensus.

I’ve been following the talk and tagging lists for a couple of years now and 
don’t think I’ve seen consensus on anything.

My take is to toss an idea/problem into the list and see if there is anything 
that comes back in the first few days that alters your opinion on how to tag. 
Sometimes there are good suggestions that can improve your thinking on how 
something should be tagged so it is worth submitting. Just be prepared to read 
and delete a myriad of email that is basically bike shedding by people who seem 
to have never been out of their cultural home area.

Then just go for it and tag things. Better if you document your tagging, at 
least as a proposal.


On Jul 26, 2018, at 6:15 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just use the tag. 245 in the data base now.

As for fees they can be tagged with fee= tag
As for the permit conditions .. well you could just tag permit=*

I'd just do it. Overpass turbo shows a wide distribution around the world.
It makes much more sense that some tags already on the wiki.

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.



There are some that don't show up in a simple search .. for the Overland Track 
relation 1673569 in Tasmania, Australia I have

access:conditional=permit@ 1 Oct - 31 May

fee:conditional=yes@ 1 Oct - 31 May

Not certain how to include those with access=permit.




I haven’t bother to check, but if there is a world wide distribution of people 
who have decided that access=permit makes sense then I agree that it a good 
thing to document it on the wiki.


OverpassTurbo search on "access=permit" brings them up.
Apart for the places already mentioned there are
1 in Wales
a number in England
Belgium, Germany, Austria, Mozambique, Japan.

Note 50 of these are on nodes, possibly marking an entry point.
 

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

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

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 26, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on the same
> subject that preceded it - was that there was no consensus.

I’ve been following the talk and tagging lists for a couple of years now and 
don’t think I’ve seen consensus on anything.

My take is to toss an idea/problem into the list and see if there is anything 
that comes back in the first few days that alters your opinion on how to tag. 
Sometimes there are good suggestions that can improve your thinking on how 
something should be tagged so it is worth submitting. Just be prepared to read 
and delete a myriad of email that is basically bike shedding by people who seem 
to have never been out of their cultural home area.

Then just go for it and tag things. Better if you document your tagging, at 
least as a proposal.

> On Jul 26, 2018, at 6:15 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just use the tag. 245 in the data base now.
> 
> As for fees they can be tagged with fee= tag
> As for the permit conditions .. well you could just tag permit=*
> 
> I'd just do it. Overpass turbo shows a wide distribution around the world.
> It makes much more sense that some tags already on the wiki.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

I haven’t bother to check, but if there is a world wide distribution of people 
who have decided that access=permit makes sense then I agree that it a good 
thing to document it on the wiki.




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

On 27/07/18 10:45, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:40 PM marc marc  wrote:

Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:39, Szem a écrit :
did you read the previous (a few month ago) thread about this kind of
issue ?
imho *=licence is included in the current meaning of *=customers

The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on the same
subject that preceded it - was that there was no consensus. I
understand that you are entirely convinced that your personal view is
the only correct one. Several others on the thread were convinced,
equally unalterably, that this regime is a special case of
'access=private' or 'access=no', and a few that it was not very far
removed from 'access=yes' or 'access=permissive'.

I'm equally convinced that 'access=permit' really is a thing unto
itself, and that attempting to force-fit it into one of the other
categories is misguided. (In fact, that force-fitting occasionally
comes across as being close to an admonition, "The data model is fine.
Fix your country!")

Several countries (US, CA, AU,


Add Papua New Guinea for Kokada Trail, there is a K350 fee for adults.
http://www.kokodatrackauthority.org/x,963,345,0/trek-permits-for-the-kokoda-track.html


apparently HU) have schemes where
government land is accessed by permit. The permits are often free or
granted for only a nominal fee, and usually the only condition is that
you have to identify yourself and agree to follow the specific
regulations pertaining to the area or way in question. The permits are
often more about getting a signed agreement to follow the rules than
they are about collecting fees or restricting numbers.



Just use the tag. 245 in the data base now.

As for fees they can be tagged with fee= tag
As for the permit conditions .. well you could just tag permit=*

I'd just do it. Overpass turbo shows a wide distribution around the world.
It makes much more sense that some tags already on the wiki.

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.


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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:40 PM marc marc  wrote:
> Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:39, Szem a écrit :
> did you read the previous (a few month ago) thread about this kind of
> issue ?
> imho *=licence is included in the current meaning of *=customers

The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on the same
subject that preceded it - was that there was no consensus. I
understand that you are entirely convinced that your personal view is
the only correct one. Several others on the thread were convinced,
equally unalterably, that this regime is a special case of
'access=private' or 'access=no', and a few that it was not very far
removed from 'access=yes' or 'access=permissive'.

I'm equally convinced that 'access=permit' really is a thing unto
itself, and that attempting to force-fit it into one of the other
categories is misguided. (In fact, that force-fitting occasionally
comes across as being close to an admonition, "The data model is fine.
Fix your country!")

Several countries (US, CA, AU, apparently HU) have schemes where
government land is accessed by permit. The permits are often free or
granted for only a nominal fee, and usually the only condition is that
you have to identify yourself and agree to follow the specific
regulations pertaining to the area or way in question. The permits are
often more about getting a signed agreement to follow the rules than
they are about collecting fees or restricting numbers.

An example is that New York City's Bureau of Water Supply has all of
the following cases - and some of us want to distinguish among them on
the map!

access=yes - http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign3.jpg

access=private(or no) -
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign4.jpg

access=permissive - I don't have a good example of signage, but there
are blazed trails that cross otherwise 'access=no' land and are signed
accordingly. Trailhead signs look like
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wpha8SDETSw/VDfBDaXk3rI/kT4/aAKtBpPAs4g/s1600/IMG_6909%2B%281280x960%29.jpg,
the red markers regularly waymark the trail, but the 'NO TRESPASSING'
signs may be posted on both sides of the trail corridor.

access=permissive (but permission temporarily revoked) -
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/graphics/ashokan-temporary-closure.png
(I don't try to keep up with these projects on the map. They're too
volatile.)

access=permit -
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign2.jpg (One
occasionally sees the obsolete
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign1.jpg)

access=customers -
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign5.jpg (You
pay for the deer tag and are allowed in in the hunting season only for
the purpose of hunting.)

From this list, perhaps people can see why I think that 'permit' is a
separate thing from the others. These areas aren't signed alike. They
truly do - to my thinking - have access restrictions that are
different in kind, not just in degree.

I've heard from some that the scheme I describe doesn't make any
sense. Nevertheless, it's there. It's field-observable (read the text
on the signs). I wish to produce maps that render all five of these
cases (public, private, permissive, customers, permit) differently.
(In previous discussions, I have been accused that such a desire is
'tagging for the renderer.' Nevertheless, it is an obvious logical
impossibility to render differently areas that are tagged alike.) I
wish to use these maps for planning purposes - to know, for instance,
whether I need to bring my New York City access card or parking tag on
a particular outing.

I do not see a consensus that 'access=permit' is a bad idea. Different
users repeatedly request it, and when I was unwise enough to bring it
up on my own accord, several other users agreed with me. Rather I see
that there is a failed consensus that it is a good idea, and no single
alternative has been presented for which there is a stronger
consensus. One user even asserted that the only way to map such an
area would be to create nodes for the individual signs!

I will confess that I've been remiss about wikifying my thoughts on
the matter, despite having entered quite a few 'access=permit' areas.
Part of the reason is that I'm virtually certain that doing so would
only be firing the first shot in an edit war. That's how badly mappers
disagree on this point.

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

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

[marc marc]

Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:39, Szem a écrit :
> I'd like to draw your attention to a problem:

did you read the previous (a few month ago) thread about this kind of 
issue ?
imho *=licence is included in the current meaning of *=customers

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

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

[Szem]

Hi,

I'd like to draw your attention to a problem:
There are many special roads in Hungary only used for prior 
authorization / permission. The total length of these roads are hundreds 
of kilometers.
The type of permit applies to pedestrian / bike access or only motor 
vehicle depending on the roads. These roads are currently not properly 
tagged.
There is a significant difference compared to existing values (private, 
permissive), because mostly anyone can ask permission for these roads 
(what you get), but without it, entry is forbidden. That's why I've 
thought needs a new tag.

These roads can be classified into three main categories:
- Roads found in Waterworks area (These roads go in untouched nature, 
perfect for biking, running. Entry without permission is strictly 
forbidden, a photo ID is required, but anyone can get it. It had to pay 
for it, but it's free now):
The access tags would be sg like this: access=no / private?, 
*foot=license*, horse=no, motor_vehicle / vehicle? =no, *bicycle= license*
- Roads on the embankments (The longest ones in category. Driving by car 
without permission is forbidden, other access is free. Some roads on the 
embankments are free access):
The access tags are: access= private, foot=yes, horse=yes, motor_vehicle 
/ vehicle? =private, bicycle=yes, *motorcar=license, motorcycle=license*
- Roads managed by Hunting Association (wildlife reserves) (These roads 
go in huge forests. Crossing by vehicle without permission is forbidden):
 The access tags are: access= private, foot=yes, *horse= license, 
motor_vehicle / vehicle? =license, bicycle= license*
(I know the "*license or authorization?*", maybe not the best choice, 
but these are different from permissive and private. I'm waiting for 
your proposal.)


Thanks for your reply,

Szem

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