On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:40 PM marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> 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/AAAAAAAAkT4/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
