On 25-Sep-17 04:20 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:
access=permit Yes
operator=* ... no - the permit organisation may not be 'operator'.
I much prefer the permit:*=* system as that does signify that it
is strictly related to the permit.
If a fee is required then permit:fee=* might be suitable ...
similar to the contact details permit:phone/website/email=* ?
I'm absolutely fine with permit:operator if needed. In a great many
cases, the permit contact is the same as the general contact for the
site, and in that case, I don't see the need for double tagging. Can
we agree that the permit contact uses permit:operator=*,
permit:addr:*=*, permit:phone=*, etc? and falls back on the
corresponding tags without 'permit:' if the more specific tagging is
not present?
By the same token it's possible to imagine separate
foot:permit:website=*, snowmobile:permit:website=* - separated by
transportation mode. I don't think I have a current example, because
New York went to a scheme where snowmobile registration fees give
permission to use most of the trails, but there used to be examples
where the snowmobile access permits were contracted to a different
servicer than the summer permits.
That makes sense to me.
I too have no example where the transport nature determines the method
of obtaining a permit. But a provision for it does no harm?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
