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

[moltonel]

On 21 July 2016 12:31:42 GMT+01:00, m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:
>
>In my view access=permit seems like they way to go. Having
>access=private with permit=something adds to the complexity without
>adding value. Keep it simple.

Joining this discussion late, but just as another datapoint, this usecase 
(permit required but routinely granted) matches one I mapped a while ago: a 
pilgrim path in Ireland that goes in part through private land. You need to 
apply for permit at the local abbey (no online form available). I went  with 
access=permit at the time: it seemed to fit very well, without needing a big 
discussion thread :p

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1969406

-- 
Vincent Dp

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-27 10:54 GMT+02:00 moltonel :

> I went  with access=permit at the time: it seemed to fit very well,
> without needing a big discussion thread :p
>


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).

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kevin Kenny wrote:
> How many more years must I wait, then, before they will become visible 
> on any of the tile layers on openstreetmap.org?

This is going to sound snarky and it isn't meant as such, but: the number of
years until you send a pull request to openstreetmap-carto. :)

But remember that OSM is an international project and that a solution needs
to work internationally and be comprehensible in the lingua franca of the
project, which is British English. I'm not 100% sure that your definition of
"forest landuse" necessarily accords with that. But, that said, I've not
looked into it in any great depth so may be talking nonsense.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/State-parks-and-state-forests-specific-tagging-question-general-mapping-philosophy-tp5879163p5879223.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-26 21:11 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny :

> "boundary=protected_area" does not render. I don't expect, given the
> amount of progress toward rendering it in the last two or three years, that
> I'm going to see rendering of protected areas on any maps I don't produce.



I think there is no general opposition to render it, but it can't be
reasonably done until hstore gets activated or the required (sub)-keys are
imported as columns into the rendering db. boundary=protected_area without
protection classes is too generic to be rendered in a way that makes sense
for all its application cases.

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

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

[Warin]

On 7/27/2016 7:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2016-07-27 10:54 GMT+02:00 moltonel >:


I went with access=permit at the time: it seemed to fit very well,
without needing a big discussion thread :p



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).


For me access=permit (or any other value) says nothing about the 
difficulty, time line nor any other feature of obtaining access.
Few access permissions are sex based - the Isle of Athos (Greece) for 
instance - males only, and even they need permission.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/07/2016 03:59, Kevin Kenny wrote:
How many more years must I wait, then, before they will become visible 
on any of the tile layers on openstreetmap.org 
? If it hadn't been a couple or three years 
already, I'd be more patient. A New Yorker would find it astonishing 
not to see the Adirondack Park, which occupies about a sixth of the 
land area of the state, but if it were not mistagged 'national park' 
there would be nothing to trigger its rendering. The smaller state 
parks, state forests, and similar reserves likewise would likewise 
have no attributes visible to the renderer.


What exactly are you waiting for?  the magic map fairies to read the 
tagging list and think "hmm - request for a new rendering of US Parks, 
must set some time aside for that" :-)


It'd be nice to be able to customise the tile layers easily on osm.org, 
but the only reason that it isn't is that no one has sat down and 
written the code yet.  However, it is possible to use other tile layers 
with a bit of browser trickery: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Your_tiles_from_osm.org 
.  If you're not in a position to submit changes to osm.org yourself 
(and I'm certainly not) you could perhaps try bribing potential 
developers with donations, charitable or otherwise :)


With regard to "what gets rendered at what scale" I'd agree that there 
is an issue with the styles on osm.org when showing "outdoor" features.  
The cycle map does probably the best job around e.g. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/36.4749/-121.2047 (just to pick 
somewhere I'm familiar with and is fairly path-complete) but it's not 
ideal.  Again, however, the reason why a style suited to outdoor areas 
especially in the US hasn't appeared is that no-one has yet created one.


However, it's really not _that_ difficult to tweak a version of OSM's 
standard map style (or another one) to both display existing features 
slightly differently and to display new features.



An example of the latter is in a lua script that I use for a local OSM 
style here:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L251


An example of "changing the zoom level at which something appears" is at:

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/openstreetmap-carto-AJT/blob/master/landcover.mss#L474


If you can count brackets and change numbers to higher or lower values, 
you're mostly there!


Someone did ask over at the issue list for the standard style "how do I 
create a map style"


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2246

whilst the question wasn't really ontopic there, the answer I gave 
applies here too I think.


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

 On 07/27/2016 05:52 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 27/07/2016 03:59, Kevin Kenny wrote:

How many more years must I wait, then, before they will become visible on
any of the tile layers on openstreetmap.org? If it hadn't been a couple or
three years already, I'd be more patient. A New Yorker would find it
astonishing not to see the Adirondack Park, which occupies about a sixth of
the land area of the state, but if it were not mistagged 'national park'
there would be nothing to trigger its rendering. The smaller state parks,
state forests, and similar reserves likewise would likewise have no
attributes visible to the renderer.


What exactly are you waiting for?  the magic map fairies to read the
tagging list and think "hmm - request for a new rendering of US Parks, must
set some time aside for that" :-)

It'd be nice to be able to customise the tile layers easily on osm.org, but
the only reason that it isn't is that no one has sat down and written the
code yet.  However, it is possible to use other tile layers with a bit of
browser trickery:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Your_tiles_from_osm.org
.  If you're not in a position to submit changes to osm.org yourself (and
I'm certainly not) you could perhaps try bribing potential developers with
donations, charitable or otherwise :).

Your "do it yourself or pay someone to do it" comment is a bit misplaced
and is coming across as a facile dismissal. Pointing me at "Mapnik for
beginners" is not helping.

I've already done it myself, starting from Lars Ahlzen's TopOSM, and I'm
happy with the result for my own use. (I haven't got the bandwidth to share
it far and wide.) https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/karl.html is a little
bit of GeoJSON atop my own basemap. I haven't changed it over to
protected_area rendering just yet because I'm still working on the
underlying data for my home state of New York, which is unusual in that has
very little in the way of national parks or national forests but a wealth
of state land, including the largest park of any sort in the Lower 48. The
Adirondack and Catskill Parks now have protected_area tagging on all their
parcels, but there's at least another few weeks of work getting the rest of
the state up to the same level. I've got about 1500 protected areas in
place, and another few hundred to do before I'll take another run at the
rendering.

The part that I can't do anything about is getting hstore activated on the
main rendering database. That's a matter of turning a switch - osmosis,
osm2pgsql, mapnik, everything is ready for it - but this problem isn't
important enough for the amount of planning, testing and downtime that
would be needed to turn it. That's not really fixable with time or money,
short of a new parallel data center! Any change that fundamental is a risk
to the project, and I just have to wait for something more important to
come along that will justify the move. I can't really foresee that
happening. The risk in making the change simply is not tolerable. I'd
venture to say that the change will never happen because the current
rendering is nearly good enough for most users, and no issue that is
important enough to justify the change will ever arise. Every project
reaches that level of maturity at some point, where the risk of breaking
something for everyone outweighs the potential reward of virtually any
change. A lot of business people don't take a technology seriously until it
reaches that level of stability.

That leaves US users in a bit of a quandary, with only a few viable
choices: beef up openstreetmap.us to be the public face of the project on
this side of the ocean (a disaster from a marketing perspective, to have
two competing faces), resign ourselves to the fact that our national
forests, state parks, and similar administrative regions will never appear
on the main map, or tag for the renderer. That's where we've been for a
couple of years now.

The other part that I can't do anything about is coming up with a suitably
artistic rendering style. The underlying problem there is that I'm
colour-blind. I come up with interfaces that are ugly to others, and many
of them come up with interfaces that are unusable to me without
technological assistance. I have appropriate assistive applications to be
able to discriminate the colours I can't see (I use them on a daily basis
to read statisticians' "heat maps"), but they won't tell me what will look
good.

If a pull request would solve the problem, I'd have done it a couple of
years ago. I've prepared a lot of data. I've configured osm2pgsql, osmosis
and mapnik to use it, and tested the resulting rendering. I've got "get
with Lars on reactiviating TopOSM" in the queue right after "get the State
Parks fixed" and "get the rendering on kbk.is-a-geek.net switched over to
protected_area".

I'm sorry if I'm prickly. I'm frustrated.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstr

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 07/27/2016 06:23 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Even though I say it who shouldn't, I do a pretty fair job as a
> "consumer" of OSM data myself. It only increases my frustration to know
> that we could have an information-dense rendering like
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/karl.html?la=42.1694&lo=-74.1057&z=13 and
> don't.  

I think it is too much to ask of the map on www.openstreetmap.org to
offer the maximum degree of information density for all possible
purposes, and you should never choose your tagging according to "what
renders". I'm concerned to hear you talking of "telling as few lies as
possible" - it already sounds as if you're compromising data quality in
an attempt to "make it render". Don't do that.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 07/27/2016 02:36 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> The part that I can't do anything about is getting hstore activated on
> the main rendering database. That's a matter of turning a switch -
> osmosis, osm2pgsql, mapnik, everything is ready for it - but this
> problem isn't important enough for the amount of planning, testing and
> downtime that would be needed to turn it. 

Who has told you that? I don't see (a) that everything is ready for it
nor (b) that it would require any downtime. For example I'm running
osm-carto with hstore and using views so I don't have to modify the
style; but it hasn't been shown whether that would be a good approach
for OSM or whether the carto style should be changed to use hstore
columns directly.

> Any change that
> fundamental is a risk to the project

It's a change that is more complicated than flicking a switch and other
things might have priority, but "a risk to the project"? Really? Have
you come up with that yourself or can you quote someone on that?

> no issue that is important enough to justify the change will ever arise.

There's quite a few people who have changes in waiting that are only
possible with the hstore extension. Of course there lies a danger in
that - without the excuse of "needs hstore", we might suddenly find
ourselves having to cater to lots of niche requests, aka "if there's a
tag to differentiate X and Y then I want to see that difference on the map!"

> That leaves US users in a bit of a quandary, with only a few viable
> choices: beef up openstreetmap.us  to be the
> public face of the project on this side of the ocean (a disaster from a
> marketing perspective, to have two competing faces)

I don't think so. In fact I would like to see more regional diversity in
"faces", instead of everyone trying to cram their national specialities
into one central mapping style.

> I'm sorry if I'm prickly. I'm frustrated.

I think you're just too impatient.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Dave Swarthout]

@Kevin; I'm glad to see someone is interested in clearing up the mess in
the Adirondack Park and sorry to hear about your frustration concerning
rendering of the protected areas in NYS. Although I no longer hike in that
area because I moved to Alaska in 1983 I have a strong and continuing
interest in it because for many years that was where I went to go
wilderness camping. I've hiked the High Peak region and walked the
Northville-Placid Trail. The many Wilderness and Primitive areas tagged
with landuse=forest is clearly inaccurate but the massive amount of work
needed to actually trace the wooded areas, swamps and bare mountain tops
that make up those Wilderness areas in order to tag them properly has
prevented me from even getting started.

To me, the landuse=forest tag is meant for tree covered areas that are
being grown and managed to supply wood for construction, paper, or what
have you. I'm not going to step into the landcover=trees vs natural=wood
controversy except the say that in the styles I use with the mkgmap program
I render them identically. Also, I think perhaps using a separate set of
styles for the U.S., Europe, Japan, or elsewhere might be a suitable
solution to the various inconsistencies we find in the OSM renderings

I don't have any other input at the moment that will help you but I want to
thank you for your work so far and to encourage you to continue your effort
to resolve those issues.

Cheers,
Dave



On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 07/27/2016 02:36 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > The part that I can't do anything about is getting hstore activated on
> > the main rendering database. That's a matter of turning a switch -
> > osmosis, osm2pgsql, mapnik, everything is ready for it - but this
> > problem isn't important enough for the amount of planning, testing and
> > downtime that would be needed to turn it.
>
> Who has told you that? I don't see (a) that everything is ready for it
> nor (b) that it would require any downtime. For example I'm running
> osm-carto with hstore and using views so I don't have to modify the
> style; but it hasn't been shown whether that would be a good approach
> for OSM or whether the carto style should be changed to use hstore
> columns directly.
>
> > Any change that
> > fundamental is a risk to the project
>
> It's a change that is more complicated than flicking a switch and other
> things might have priority, but "a risk to the project"? Really? Have
> you come up with that yourself or can you quote someone on that?
>
> > no issue that is important enough to justify the change will ever arise.
>
> There's quite a few people who have changes in waiting that are only
> possible with the hstore extension. Of course there lies a danger in
> that - without the excuse of "needs hstore", we might suddenly find
> ourselves having to cater to lots of niche requests, aka "if there's a
> tag to differentiate X and Y then I want to see that difference on the
> map!"
>
> > That leaves US users in a bit of a quandary, with only a few viable
> > choices: beef up openstreetmap.us  to be the
> > public face of the project on this side of the ocean (a disaster from a
> > marketing perspective, to have two competing faces)
>
> I don't think so. In fact I would like to see more regional diversity in
> "faces", instead of everyone trying to cram their national specialities
> into one central mapping style.
>
> > I'm sorry if I'm prickly. I'm frustrated.
>
> I think you're just too impatient.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> 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] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>  I don't see (a) that everything is ready for it
> nor (b) that it would require any downtime. For example I'm running
> osm-carto with hstore and using views so I don't have to modify the
> style; but it hasn't been shown whether that would be a good approach
> for OSM or whether the carto style should be changed to use hstore
> columns directly.
>

It's also a decision that can be deferred. Enabling hstore while keeping
the existing columns would be Mostly Harmless, particularly if the keys
that have identified columns are not duplicated in the hstore. It does have
the effect of making the hstore keys "second class citizens", but is
a lot better than the current approach of denying access altogether to
keys outside a specific, enumerated set.


> There's quite a few people who have changes in waiting that are only
> possible with the hstore extension. Of course there lies a danger in
> that - without the excuse of "needs hstore", we might suddenly find
> ourselves having to cater to lots of niche requests, aka "if there's a
> tag to differentiate X and Y then I want to see that difference on the
> map!"
>

"Niche requests" are an indicator of project vitality. Your statement
comes across as saying, "the lack of hstore provides us with a
convenient excuse not to be responsive to users and contributors."
I hope that isn't what you meant.

It's probably worth noting that in the related discussion of access=permit
that I'm not proposing ever to make a distinction between the types
for the purpose of rendering the main map. I simply want the information
for maps that I render myself. There's a huge difference between
"make a distinction between objects of type A and type B" and
"make a distinction between objects of type A and nothing."
The first suppresses detail, the second suppresses existence.

> That leaves US users in a bit of a quandary, with only a few viable
> > choices: beef up openstreetmap.us  to be the
> > public face of the project on this side of the ocean (a disaster from a
> > marketing perspective, to have two competing faces)
>
> I don't think so. In fact I would like to see more regional diversity in
> "faces", instead of everyone trying to cram their national specialities
> into one central mapping style.
>

I agree wholeheartedly. It's important to note: that sword cuts both ways.
There's a fair amount in the way of Eurocentric (and, more specifically,
UK-centric) specialities baked into the current system. Unless handled
delicately, the whole localization issue comes across as relegating
non-European communities to their respective ghettos. But yes, we
do need maps better adapted to national and local conditions.

> I'm sorry if I'm prickly. I'm frustrated.
>
> I think you're just too impatient.
>
>
You're right. It's only about three years that the discussion of "hstore on
the central server" has been going on sporadically, during all of which
time I've been running an hstore-enabled rendering chain on my personal
tile server. I suppose it isn't reasonable to expect something like that to
happen in less than a decade.

I think that some people fail to comprehend the scale of the problem
over here. Without "tagging for the renderer", virtually nothing that you
see on https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/43.121/-74.539
would be visible: the major highways, city names, and waterbodies
would remain, but everything else would be gone. Not "badly rendered",
simply absent. And that's the case all over the continent -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/37.003/-110.814 shows what it's
like in the West. The National Parks, National Forests, BLM lands,
and so on are our administrative disticts in the rural US. Asking
to render an administrative boundary that encloses an area the size
of Slovenia, if not Belgium - as some of these areas do -
doesn't seem to me to be too unreasonable a request.

I also note that it isn't just a US thing. Calling an "area of outstanding
natural beauty" boundary=national_park, or a "regional park" or
"marine protected area" leisure=nature_reserve is just as much
tagging for the renderer as using one of those tags to label a
National Forest, a state park, or any one of the other legal zoo
of protected areas that we have over here, and yet I see such things
all over the map of the UK. It's not a lie, exactly, quite. Those are all
areas set aside to protect some aspect of nature. It's not quite
as precise tagging as boundary=protected_area with an
appropriate protect_class, but it seems to be impossible for even
the Britons to resist tagging for the renderer to at least that extent.
I see that they have the protected_area tagging in place on most
if not all of those areas, all ready to go when and if the renderer
supports it. I do that as well, on the areas that I've edited recently.

I'm not cleaning up the mess, exactly, quite. I'm just replacing
it in my area with a smaller and bette

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  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= .

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'

[Tagging] Does disused:railway=* require railway=disused?

[David Marchal]

Hello, there.

I've been told in a JOSM ticket 
(https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/12866#comment:2) that the wiki states 
that disused:railway=* requires railway=disused, and, indeed, the wiki says 
that (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:railway). I don't 
understand why as, AFAIK, the lifecycle prefixing doesn't requires this, as it 
merely intends to suppress the(highway|railway|*)=disused tagging. Requiring to 
keep this deprecated and redundant data sounds inconsistent and confusing to 
me, especially if this requirement is limited to railways. How do things stand 
regarding this matter?

Awaiting your answers,

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