Summary first: This looks very good to me, and I think it is in line with the discussion here in the last few days. I support this.
* Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> [170920 20:39]: > The last few messages in this thread seem to have quieted much of the > discussion. Let me summarize my position, and see if we've achieved > rough consensus. > access=permit (and (transport mode)=permit): > Symbolizes that the landowner requires permission for access, but > has a policy that grants access to members of the public provided > that certain formalities are observed. > Ordinarily this tag will be accompanied by an 'operator=*' tag and > one or more tags giving contact information (phone=*, fax=*, > email=*, etc.) and/or an address in the Karlsruhe schema. If the > contact information for the person or agency that administers > permission is different from the main contact for a location, way > or area, or if the address of the permitting person or agency is > not the physical address of the site, then the tags may be > prefixed with 'permit:': that is, permit:phone=*, permit::fax=*, > permit:email=*,permit:addr:*=*, etc. > At least in some locales, 'permit' is distinguished from 'private' > in that 'private' areas are at best unknown and at worst allow access > only to parties with a prior business relationship with the landowner. > The fact that there is some formal process for obtaining permission > is useful information at the early stages of trip planning. It is > distinguished from 'yes' in that one cannot simply arrive at the > site and expect to access it. Grouping it under 'yes' violates > the cultural assumptions of at least a significant set of OSM users, > and grouping it under 'no/private' does the same. > If details of permit administration are observable on the ground, we > can work out ways to map them. In the common situation that I have > observed around me (and I've seen it with properties belonging to New > York State, several municipal governments, Nature Conservancy, Open > Space Institute, and several private conservancies), the common > phrasing on signs is: 'Access by permit only. For information contact: > [...]' (as opposed to the 'POSTED: No Trespassing' that denotes > access=private). Since what is ordinarily visible on the ground is the > signage forbidding unpermitted access (but implying that permission is > routinely granted), that's the information that I propose to map. > Since ordinarily I do NOT see details of the permit regime in the > field, I do not propose any sort of schema for permit administration > at the present time. > Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate? I agree with both the suggested tagging as well as the rationale for the proposed tagging. > It would meet my needs for trail mapping. (On some maps, I'd wind up > further dividing by 'operator' because, for instance, New York City > access rules are already familiar to most of the intended users. But > how I choose to render is between me and my users.) > If it appears acceptable, I'll update the Wiki page and post a summary > on the 'talk' page. Please do so. > Beyond that, this is the first proposal I've made here that seems > to have enough traction to go forward. Can someone help me with > the formalities for the voting process, assuming that we've achieved > a rough consensus? I've not done that before. Sorry, I have no clue about the voting process here beyond having voted myself a few times. Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging