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