On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com > wrote:
> yes, it fits well if you know what the situation is, but without > documentation you don't know whether this is only supposed to be used for > places where permits are generally granted, or if it is also used for > places where you need very good reasons to ever get a permission to set > your feet there (e.g. strict nature reserves where access is only granted > to scientists). > That's a great point, and is the reason I asked about what the process is for initiating a new tag (beyond just using it and possibly wikifying it). What I'd propose informally: access=permit Access is allowed to the general public provided that certain formalities are observed in advance. By distinction, access=private and access=no refer to cases where access must actually be negotiated and justified on an individual basis, or access is reserved to certain classes of people, for example, residents, club members, members of a given profession, or adherents of a given religion). The access=permit tag does not address the method by which permits may be obtained. Permits may be available for the asking, may require reservation of a specific date, be awarded by lottery, require payment of a fee, and so on. At a minimum, access=permit should be paired with some sort of contact where further information may be maintained. This may or may not be the main contact associated with a feature. If it is a secondary contact, it should be identified with permit:website=*, permit:phone=*, permit::fax=*, permit:email=*, etc. If a fee is charged for the permit, the tagging may include permit:fee=yes or permit:fee=<number> <currency>. Examples: foot=permit website=http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/recreation/index.shtml permit:website=http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/recreation/access.shtml New York City-owned watershed lands on which foot traffic is permitted on condition of agreeing to terms and conditions and securing a permit. (Permits are granted pretty much automatically on request.) foot=permit permit:website=https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/wpres.htm permit:phone=+1(209)372-0200 Yosemite National Park. Permits are on a lottery system, and only a few per cent of requests are granted. Nevertheless, the access is not limited to specific classes of people. foot=permit permit:website=http://frostvalley.org/about-us/outdoor-sporting-memberships/ permit:phone=+1(845) 985-2291 ext. 217 permit:email=naturalresour...@frostvalley.org permit:fee=55 USD per annum An example of a privately-owned camp that offers for-fee access to members of the general public. The fee listed is the lowest fee without invoking discounts for children, senior citizens, or local residents, or surcharges for hunters and fishermen. The permit also requires a criminal background check, which is disclosed on the website. foot=permit permit:website= https://govt.westlaw.com/nycrr/Document/I21eeaefec22211ddb7c8fb397c5bd26b?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29 The Eastern Zone of the High Peaks Wilderness Area requires a self-issuing permit, obtainable at trailheads in that zone and at ranger stations. (Acquiring the permit consists of filling out a carbon-paper form, dropping the top copy in the letter box and taking the bottom copy with you.) Encoding all the endless variations on the theme is Out Of Scope: they can be incorporated by reference using the contact information. The key is that the landowner has a uniform policy allowing access by the general public as long as formalities are observed, rather than restricting access to particular classes of people. I do not envision using access=permit to document "strict nature reserve accessible only to scientists", "monastic community accessible only to certain male members of the Eastern churches", "country club accessible only to members", "gated community accessible only to residents," or even "the farmer's pretty friendly and will likely let you cross his land if you ask politely." For me, the boundary case would probably be New York's ASK program http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/askperm.pdf - where a landowner can voluntarily post contact information and indicate that permission may be granted to strangers. There's a standard permission card that the state provides http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/ask.pdf . Since the landowner can still refuse permission for any reason or no reason, I'd incline toward access=private, but most landowners that participate in the program are delighted to have responsible visitors who monitor their property for hazardous conditions, poachers, vandalism and encroachments. The visitors that ask permission are likely also to clean up other people's litter, clear deadfall from paths, and otherwise help the landowner keep the land in good condition. Most landowners wouldn't participate if they weren't prepared to welcome visitors, so I'd be even happier with access=permit, to be able to include contact information. So: does this sound like a reasonable proposal? How does one proceed with actually proposing it as a feature?
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
