How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

Kevin Kenny-4
Gentlebeings,

In a discussion today on 'imports,' Martin Koppenhoefer raised a
concern that appears to have no answer in current tagging practice. I
suspect that it's yet another case where a fairly common case in the
US violates a hidden cultural assumption in OSM's data model.

The case in question is government-owned lands that are open to the
public but require a permit to access. In a great many cases the
permits are free of charge and granted routinely to all who apply.

BACKGROUND

In my work, this first came up with an import I did this spring of the
New York City watershed recreation land boundaries. These are not
located in New York City. Rather, they are land in the Catskill
Mountains and in the Croton watershed, purchased by New York City to
protect its water supply from development. Many of these lands require
a permit to access, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424230670 is
typical. The permit is obtained simply by filling out a Web form,
submitting it, and printing out the PDF that is sent back, so it's
effectively never denied.

Someone on one of the lists proposed using the little-used
'access=permit' (or in this case, 'foot=permit') to tag this case.
'access=private' feels entirely wrong: it's not 'private land; keep
out', but rather 'there are a few formalities to comply with.' I
stated that agreed with 'access=permit', and the issue passed with
little or no further comment.

A side note: some of the permit-only areas give access only for the
purposes of hunting or fishing, and permit-holders must also hold a
valid sporting license from New York State and be present only in the
season for the game they're pursuing. I chose not to represent that
case in OSM, since the site from which the permit is obtained has
details.

THE CURRENT PROJECT

Now I'm working on a separate project - a reimport of the New York
State DEC Lands database. The last import was in 2009 and, in addition
to being out of date, was referenced to the wrong datum (WJS84 vs
NAD27) and had some topological problems (unclosed ways,
self-intersections, even multipolygons with inner ways misidentified
as outer and vice versa). That import has two more places with similar
permission regimes:

(1) The High Peaks Wilderness
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360488 . There is an extremely
simple permit regime there. Carbon-paper forms are available at the
trailheads if one enters on a trail (as nearly everyone does). You
simply fill one out, sign it, put the top copy in a letterbox on the
kiosk and take the bottom copy with you. Technically, this is required
only in the Eastern High Peaks Zone (east of the ridge that includes
Nye, Street and MacNaughton Mountains), but the boundary is indefinite
and very few hikers ever approach that ridge from the west.

(2) The Long Island DEC nature reserves (except for Ridge Conservation
Area) require a free permit, again obtained for free by filling out a
form on a web site.

I'm fine with 'access=yes' (or 'foot=yes') for the High Peaks; dealing
with the formailities does not require any advance planning on the
part of the traveller.. I proposed 'access=permit' for the Long Island
reserves, and that was when people challenged the idea.

REQUIREMENTS

My basic requirement is to discriminate between the three cases:
'private - keep out', 'permission needed' and 'no permission needed'.
I have various commercial trail maps that show the three cases with
distinct rendering. It's very useful in trip planing; "do I need to
remember to bring my NYC access card?" If any two of the three are
tagged alike, they cannot be rendered differently in maps that I
produce.

The last couple of times that I raised the argument that "things
tagged alike cannot be rendered differently," several people accused
me of "tagging for the renderer." That rather misses the point. I'm
entirely willing to adapt my rendering to whatever tagging scheme is
settled on. But things tagged alike cannot, even in principle, be
rendered differently, whatever renderer is used.

ALTERNATIVES

I favor 'access=permit' since it is succinct and expresses the
intention that a permit is required. 'access=private' does not convey
the idea that permission is routinely granted. 'access=permissive'
does not convey the fact that permission must be obtained. One
alternative that was suggested was 'access=no
foot:conditional=permissive @ permit_holder' - but that tagging is
surely not widely accepted. taginfo.openstreetmap.org turns up only a
handful of uses of 'permit_holder' in any cpntext, and they are not
consistent enough to establish that any of them is following accepted
practice. Moreover, there appears to be a formal syntax for the access
conditions that is incompletely specified. JOSM appears not to like
any specification that I've tried to enter.

Martin points out that this is a better forum than 'talk-us' or
'imports' for raising the issue. Do the people here have any better
idea how to proceed?

Thanks

Kevin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Colin Smale

 

On 2016-07-19 20:21, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Gentlebeings,

In a discussion today on 'imports,' Martin Koppenhoefer raised a
concern that appears to have no answer in current tagging practice. I
suspect that it's yet another case where a fairly common case in the
US violates a hidden cultural assumption in OSM's data model.

The case in question is government-owned lands that are open to the
public but require a permit to access. In a great many cases the
permits are free of charge and granted routinely to all who apply.

BACKGROUND

In my work, this first came up with an import I did this spring of the
New York City watershed recreation land boundaries. These are not
located in New York City. Rather, they are land in the Catskill
Mountains and in the Croton watershed, purchased by New York City to
protect its water supply from development. Many of these lands require
a permit to access, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424230670 is
typical. The permit is obtained simply by filling out a Web form,
submitting it, and printing out the PDF that is sent back, so it's
effectively never denied.

Someone on one of the lists proposed using the little-used
'access=permit' (or in this case, 'foot=permit') to tag this case.
'access=private' feels entirely wrong: it's not 'private land; keep
out', but rather 'there are a few formalities to comply with.' I
stated that agreed with 'access=permit', and the issue passed with
little or no further comment.

If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are loads of people with that explicit permission.

To gain access to private property, you have to ask the landowner (or their agent). If you want to cross my back yard, you can't - it's private. But I can give you explicit permission.

If the land is privately owned but the landowner makes no attempt to keep you out, then it's access=permissive. But in this case, you are not allowed in without *explicit* permission, so it's private. Unless (in the UK anyway) it is a Public Right of Way - then the landowner has no rights to keep you out, so the path may be access=yes even though the land it crosses may be access=no/private.

//colin


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are loads of people with that explicit permission.



that's also what I had written on the imports list, but I think it's maybe time to rethink this and evaluate if we shouldn't have more possibilities to differentiate. Surely it is a big difference between a totally private driveway or industrial site and government land where you need a permission but everybody will get it almost automatically?

Or another case again in some Italian towns: you need a permission to access with a motor vehicle, but you will only get it if you live there (still, these are not pedestrian like streets, they're more like normal roads, and besides residents psv, taxi and police, and public administration get permits).

Not everywhere is GB where current access restrictions seem to be sufficient for describing the situation.

cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Colin Smale

On 2016-07-19 21:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are loads of people with that explicit permission.



that's also what I had written on the imports list, but I think it's maybe time to rethink this and evaluate if we shouldn't have more possibilities to differentiate. Surely it is a big difference between a totally private driveway or industrial site and government land where you need a permission but everybody will get it almost automatically?

Or another case again in some Italian towns: you need a permission to access with a motor vehicle, but you will only get it if you live there (still, these are not pedestrian like streets, they're more like normal roads, and besides residents psv, taxi and police, and public administration get permits).

Not everywhere is GB where current access restrictions seem to be sufficient for describing the situation.
 
Agreed. However the distinction in this case is simply a) where do I apply for a permit and b) how likely am I to get one, i.e. how fussy is the landowner.
 
Your Italian streets are not IMHO "public" in the sense of access (maybe they are in the sense of ownership). You are not allowed in (with a motor vehicle), unless you have explicit permission, which may be granted to a certain class of vehicle. The semantics are exactly the same as for my back yard. If you haven't got permission, the way is closed for you. I assume that is clearly signposted. I am thinking of motor_vehicle=private,psv=yes,taxi=yes. Emergency doesn't need tagging in my opinion - the emergency services will probably have legal permission to ignore most restrictions if necessary anyway. I cannot imagine an ambulance getting fined for not having a resident's permit while saving someone's life. (On the other hand, there are some incredible jobsworths about...)
 
Maybe we can tag something about how to obtain permission: permit:issuer=Town Council or similar.
 
The situation in the UK is that you basically have an inalienable legal right to pass over a public highway (but not to stop everywhere). The landowner, whether that be an individual or the state, cannot deny you access. Motorways are not a public highway - strictly, I think they should be access=permissive.
 
//colin
 
 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Kevin Kenny-4
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>>
>> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are loads of people with that explicit permission.
>
>
>
> that's also what I had written on the imports list, but I think it's maybe time to rethink this and evaluate if we shouldn't have more possibilities to differentiate. Surely it is a big difference between a totally private driveway or industrial site and government land where you need a permission but everybody will get it almost automatically?
>
> Or another case again in some Italian towns: you need a permission to access with a motor vehicle, but you will only get it if you live there (still, these are not pedestrian like streets, they're more like normal roads, and besides residents psv, taxi and police, and public administration get permits).
>
> Not everywhere is GB where current access restrictions seem to be sufficient for describing the situation.

Thanks, Martin, that's the point I'm trying to make, and it sounds as if I may have convinced you!

The High Peaks Wilderness is a lot more like a public park than it is like your driveway. Should it be access=private because on the way in, you have to fill out a form and leave it in the letterbox at a place like this? Does that change fundamentally if you have to download a form like this from a website, fill it out, print it, and have one copy on your car's dashboard and one in your person? That sort of regime: "it's open to the public, but you have to ask for permission explicitly, which you'll always get if you're following the rules" is common in backcountry areas of the United States.

It's more a mandatory notification scheme than anything else: if I've picked up a High Peaks permit, the rangers know who I am and what my plans are, so they've got an idea where to look if I'm reported missing (which God forbid!). In a few very stressed areas, they start limiting the number of permits and using them for capacity management, but that's the exception, not the rule. When you consider that on my last trip to the High Peaks, I was at times over 30 km from the nearest road and spent four days before my first supply stop, it's understandable that they want some sort of warning what your plans are. Europe has very few places that are that remote.

It really still has the feel of 'public park with a few formalities.' It's much more like 'public park' than any of the trips that I've done on private land, where I've needed to ask politely, and answers have varied all over the map:

- "Who the hell are you?" (from a farmer brandishing a shotgun)
- "Absolutely not!"
- "A day-use membership is $55/year for individuals and $65/year for families"
- "Sure, go ahead, but make sure you pack out anything you pack in!"
- "Don't go on the south forty, I let the bull out of the barn and he don't like strangers nohow."
- (At a small resort, where I was asking to cross their land to get to a route") "So, am I bursting at the seams with paying guests that I can't let you park? Please park over by the barn and don't block the driveways!"

Instead, I know exactly what to expect and know that permission will not be refused for a trip that follows the rules.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Colin Smale

On 2016-07-19 22:01, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>>
>> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are loads of people with that explicit permission.
>
>
>
> that's also what I had written on the imports list, but I think it's maybe time to rethink this and evaluate if we shouldn't have more possibilities to differentiate. Surely it is a big difference between a totally private driveway or industrial site and government land where you need a permission but everybody will get it almost automatically?
>
> Or another case again in some Italian towns: you need a permission to access with a motor vehicle, but you will only get it if you live there (still, these are not pedestrian like streets, they're more like normal roads, and besides residents psv, taxi and police, and public administration get permits).
>
> Not everywhere is GB where current access restrictions seem to be sufficient for describing the situation.

Thanks, Martin, that's the point I'm trying to make, and it sounds as if I may have convinced you!

The High Peaks Wilderness is a lot more like a public park than it is like your driveway. Should it be access=private because on the way in, you have to fill out a form and leave it in the letterbox at a place like this? Does that change fundamentally if you have to download a form like this from a website, fill it out, print it, and have one copy on your car's dashboard and one in your person? That sort of regime: "it's open to the public, but you have to ask for permission explicitly, which you'll always get if you're following the rules" is common in backcountry areas of the United States.

It's more a mandatory notification scheme than anything else: if I've picked up a High Peaks permit, the rangers know who I am and what my plans are, so they've got an idea where to look if I'm reported missing (which God forbid!). In a few very stressed areas, they start limiting the number of permits and using them for capacity management, but that's the exception, not the rule. When you consider that on my last trip to the High Peaks, I was at times over 30 km from the nearest road and spent four days before my first supply stop, it's understandable that they want some sort of warning what your plans are. Europe has very few places that are that remote.

It really still has the feel of 'public park with a few formalities.' It's much more like 'public park' than any of the trips that I've done on private land, where I've needed to ask politely, and answers have varied all over the map:

- "Who the hell are you?" (from a farmer brandishing a shotgun)
- "Absolutely not!"
- "A day-use membership is $55/year for individuals and $65/year for families"
- "Sure, go ahead, but make sure you pack out anything you pack in!"
- "Don't go on the south forty, I let the bull out of the barn and he don't like strangers nohow."
- (At a small resort, where I was asking to cross their land to get to a route") "So, am I bursting at the seams with paying guests that I can't let you park? Please park over by the barn and don't block the driveways!"

Instead, I know exactly what to expect and know that permission will not be refused for a trip that follows the rules.
 
Your examples feel like private land to me. Except for the one with the bull...
 
Maybe this would help me see the distinction:
 
How much trouble are you in, if you enter without explicit permission? Are you (in theory at least) risking a fine? Would it be a criminal or statutory offence, or a civil wrong against the landowner? Or are there no sanctions? How likely are you to get caught? If a policeman challenges you for something, will they ask to see your permit?
 
//colin
 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Tod Fitch

On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> wrote:

Your examples feel like private land to me. Except for the one with the bull...

 
Maybe this would help me see the distinction:
 
How much trouble are you in, if you enter without explicit permission? Are you (in theory at least) risking a fine? Would it be a criminal or statutory offence, or a civil wrong against the landowner? Or are there no sanctions? How likely are you to get caught? If a policeman challenges you for something, will they ask to see your permit?
 

It can vary with what part of the country you are in and who owns the land (federal, state, county, city, etc.). There are certainly places where you can get significant fines for not having a permit. There are others where the penalty is modest or non-existent. In my experience that often depends on if the permits are used for statistical and safety purposes (how many visitors, where someone reported missing might have gone) versus if there is a resource conservation reason (restricted number of permits to keep the usage low enough that the land is not too badly damaged). The likelihood of being caught depends greatly on the staffing, both paid and volunteer, available to the agency managing the land. I have been stopped on trails and asked to produce my permit, so I know it can happen.

And these are not considered private property: In most cases if an agency attempted to block all access (issue no permits) the public outcry would cause them to back down. It is public land, accessible to all, just not everyone at the same time so entrance permits are used to manage the flow.

A map for hiking is greatly enhanced by letting its users know, in advance of arriving at the trail head, that there are permits required. Even better if those permits can’t be self-issued at the trail head. The only way to let the end user know about this is to map it and to map it some sort of tagging must be used. Current accepted tagging is insufficient.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

Kevin Kenny-4
In reply to this post by Colin Smale
Oops - sent this message from the wrong mailbox and it either bounced or got flagged for moderation.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <[hidden email]>


On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> wrote:
Your examples feel like private land to me. Except for the one with the bull...
 
Maybe this would help me see the distinction:
 
How much trouble are you in, if you enter without explicit permission? Are you (in theory at least) risking a fine? Would it be a criminal or statutory offence, or a civil wrong against the landowner? Or are there no sanctions? How likely are you to get caught? If a policeman challenges you for something, will they ask to see your permit?

The last set of examples represent the spectrum of how I interpret 'access=private' - and I'm entirely comfortable with having 'access=private' for all of them.

By contrast, the 'access=permit' is, "I have to stop at the kiosk on the way by and fill out my registration card" or "I have to make sure to have my New York City hiker card in my pack and hang the parking tag in my car" (both of which are free, and on the first trip I needed them, I printed them from the web site the night before).

If I'm in the High Peaks and encounter a ranger, he will indeed ask to see my permit (and my bear canister). If I recall correctly from people who've gotten caught, the fine is about $300 - the judge and prosecutor have some discretion. The relevant regulation is here.

But the real distinction is - once I've complied with all the formalities, they have to give me permission. That's totally unlike a private landowner, who can refuse permission for any reason or no reason. And the formalities are minimal.

That distinction is important enough that most trail maps here show the two types of regions differently: "government land, permission required", rather than "private land, keep out". And on my own maps, I want to follow that convention and render them differently.

Instead of trying to suggest a tagging scheme to allow me to do what I want, you are asserting that I shouldn't want it. You're not helping me come up with a way to tag these two situations differently, and I assure you that they are very different to any American hiker. Instead, you are asserting that they are the same, and I simply should not want there to be a difference. That is not going to help me to move forward.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Mikael Nordfeldth
In reply to this post by Tod Fitch
On 2016-07-19 22:38, Tod Fitch wrote:
> A map for hiking is greatly enhanced by letting its users know, in advance of arriving at the trail head, that there are permits required. Even better if those permits can’t be self-issued at the trail head. The only way to let the end user know about this is to map it and to map it some sort of tagging must be used. Current accepted tagging is insufficient.

I absolutely think that the tag access=private intuitively sounds like
you're not allowed to go there. But the description on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states that it's "Only
with permission of the owner on an individual basis" which is exactly
how I would interpret "access=permit" as well.

Given that description however, you are not given information about
_how_ to get that permit, if possible. So something like a 'permit' key
would be very useful here! Apparently there was some relation tag
suggested in 2010:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:permit

There has obviously also been discussion on access=license (or licence)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/License


From the top of my head I would use something pointing to a URL:
* access:url=<url>
* foot:url=<url>
* foot:permit:url=<url>
* permit=<url>
* permit:url=<url>

or maybe access:description (foot:description etc.) for a direct
human-readable text.

Tod: Is there any proposal like this out there. Is the above along the
lines of how you're thinking we could extend the current tagging scheme?

--
Mikael Nordfeldth
https://blog.mmn-o.se/
XMPP/mail: [hidden email]
OpenPGP Fingerprint: AE68 9813 0B7C FCE3 B2FA  727B C7CE 635B B52E 9B31


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Colin Smale

2016-07-19 21:54 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <[hidden email]>:
Your Italian streets are not IMHO "public" in the sense of access (maybe they are in the sense of ownership).
You are not allowed in (with a motor vehicle), unless you have explicit permission, which may be granted to a certain class of vehicle. The semantics are exactly the same as for my back yard.


no, it's completely different than your backyard, it's a public road, just that you need a permit to drive there, but you don't need it to walk there or to ride your horse. Also, if you went there without a permit in your car, it would be an offense and you'd have to pay a fine, but if I went without permission onto your backyard it would be breach of domestic peace (I think, actually I looked this one up).


If you haven't got permission, the way is closed for you. I assume that is clearly signposted. I am thinking of motor_vehicle=private,psv=yes,taxi=yes.


don't let you fool by the main sign (it doesn't indicate a oneway road here, this can also be seen 100 meters further at the next sign), unfortunately google has blurred the additional sign, but I think it reads something like "except authorized". I have asked locals how to get the authorization, you have to apply, pay a fee, and get a permit for a year.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-4

2016-07-19 22:01 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
The High Peaks Wilderness is a lot more like a public park than it is like your driveway. Should it be access=private because on the way in, you have to fill out a form and leave it in the letterbox at a place like this? Does that change fundamentally if you have to download a form like this from a website, fill it out, print it, and have one copy on your car's dashboard and one in your person?


Actually, in these two cases (self issued permit), I wouldn't even use the word "permit", its more a kind of notification system, because there's no way someone would/could reject your application, right? Still I agree it does make sense to add some tag(s) for this kind of procedure.

In the other case you wrote about, where the operator limits accessibility to reduce the impact by visitors on the nature, the word "permit" seems to fit better.

In all cases, I think it matters what you have to do / who you have to be in order to comply with the formalities. Is it something everybody can do, or does it require a special status (e.g. resident, citizenship) or function (police man, ranger, military, public administration, homeland security, fire department, etc.).

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by dieterdreist

2016-07-20 1:08 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:
in Italy, things are often not "clearly signposted", in the case I had in mind, the situation is this....


I've looked this up to see what the actual situation is, and it's almost funny how complicated it is, at least formally. These are maybe the relevant documents [0]:

http://www.comune.montepulciano.siena.it/on-line/Home/documento1826727.html
http://www.comune.montepulciano.siena.it/on-line/Home/documento1826747.html (amendment)

The first document lists 5 different zones - even if the place is really small [1] - and is full of classes and exceptions for authorized people, the document describes 22 classes with their special conditions and permits and rights, and if you look more detailed, you can see that the first class already consists of several subclasses (like residents, home owners, owners of residential buildings or parkings which are not rented to someone else, people who would have the right for a permit but don't own a vehicle (in this case you can assign the right to a third person who will then be able to assist you) etc.).

Another example are hotel and B&B guests (permits for up to 80% of the amount of rooms they have).

some other examples:
12) motorcars of relatives and other participants of weddings and baptisms for up to 15 vehicles
13) participants of funeral processions
16) one car for each public agency/office
18) non profits if they have their registered office there and the car runs on the name of the organization
...

after these classes there is the sentence: cases that don't fit into the listed classes will be evaluated on a case by case basis by the local police. ;-)

Cheers,
Martin

[0] if they haven't changed it again in the meantime, I've found it with a searchengine on the website of the town, because their own search on the website is broken and doesn't find anything, and the document is numbered and not within some structure that would allow to look for more recent versions [2]

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Tod Fitch
In reply to this post by Mikael Nordfeldth

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Mikael Nordfeldth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 2016-07-19 22:38, Tod Fitch wrote:
>> A map for hiking is greatly enhanced by letting its users know, in advance of arriving at the trail head, that there are permits required. Even better if those permits can’t be self-issued at the trail head. The only way to let the end user know about this is to map it and to map it some sort of tagging must be used. Current accepted tagging is insufficient.
>
> I absolutely think that the tag access=private intuitively sounds like
> you're not allowed to go there. But the description on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states that it's "Only
> with permission of the owner on an individual basis" which is exactly
> how I would interpret "access=permit" as well.
>
> Given that description however, you are not given information about
> _how_ to get that permit, if possible. So something like a 'permit' key
> would be very useful here! Apparently there was some relation tag
> suggested in 2010:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:permit
>
> There has obviously also been discussion on access=license (or licence)
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/License
>
>
> From the top of my head I would use something pointing to a URL:
> * access:url=<url>
> * foot:url=<url>
> * foot:permit:url=<url>
> * permit=<url>
> * permit:url=<url>
>
> or maybe access:description (foot:description etc.) for a direct
> human-readable text.
>
> Tod: Is there any proposal like this out there. Is the above along the
> lines of how you're thinking we could extend the current tagging scheme?
I do not have a specific scheme in mind and am not aware of previous proposals. My point was to agree with the originator of this thread that the existing tagging conventions seem inadequate.

To me requiring a permit, as opposed to simple permission, implies some sort of formal paperwork and documentation.

Were I to stop at a ranch house and ask for permission to cross their range land it seems very unlikely that they’d have a standardized form and procedures to follow. I’d either be told to get the heck off their land or they’d say “sure, but close the gates behind you so the cattle won’t stray”.

When I get a hiking or camping permit from, say, the US Forest Service it is usually at a “ranger station” with formal procedures to follow and generally a required discussion on current restrictions (no fires, closed areas, etc.) in effect. Also, the forest service office that I need to get a permit from might be many miles away from the trail head. In extreme cases, like the Mt. Whitney trail, I might need to submit an application for a permit long in advance where the winners who are actually issued permits selected months in advance via a random drawing.

Basically very different experiences. It seems we ought to be able to indicate that some way. “access=permit” seems the clearest and shortest for the instance of hiking. But maybe something like “access=private”, “permit=yes”, “permit:url=<url>” would work.

In the crowded beach resort city that I currently live in any resident can get a permit to park for free in the otherwise expensive pay parking near the beaches. This permit needs to be displayed in the car for which it was issued in order to avoid being fined. Should an attempt be made to cover all instances where a formal permit is required? Or let this grow organically where parking permits, vehicle entry permits, etc. are all handled differently. This organic growth of tagging seems to have been the general history of OSM.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Kevin Kenny-4
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

2016-07-19 22:01 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
The High Peaks Wilderness is a lot more like a public park than it is like your driveway. Should it be access=private because on the way in, you have to fill out a form and leave it in the letterbox at a place like this? Does that change fundamentally if you have to download a form like this from a website, fill it out, print it, and have one copy on your car's dashboard and one in your person?


Actually, in these two cases (self issued permit), I wouldn't even use the word "permit", its more a kind of notification system, because there's no way someone would/could reject your application, right? Still I agree it does make sense to add some tag(s) for this kind of procedure.

In the other case you wrote about, where the operator limits accessibility to reduce the impact by visitors on the nature, the word "permit" seems to fit better.

In all cases, I think it matters what you have to do / who you have to be in order to comply with the formalities. Is it something everybody can do, or does it require a special status (e.g. resident, citizenship) or function (police man, ranger, military, public administration, homeland security, fire department, etc.).

In the case of New York's permit-only areas (both NYS and NYC), it appears that the only condition is that you're over 18. (Kids can travel on the permit of an accompanying adult.) I run into a lot of Canadians in the Adirondacks, and a lot of new Korean immigrants in the Catskills. (New York City has some very active Korean hiking clubs.)

The language on the permits warns that they can be revoked for flagrant or repeated violations. I haven't heard of this happening very often. Then again, the permit holders seem to be a fairly well-behaved lot. The revocation wouldn't really keep someone from registering again, but would be another reason to throw the book at them if they reoffend. I have heard of people who were permanently banned from the DEC lands after being convicted for a raft of offenses related to squatting. They'd built a hunting camp on state land, and the permanent ban applies to those of them who didn't go to prison. The ones who fired on the party of rangers and troopers who came to evict them will be in prison for a very long time.

One purpose of the permit system is to have the infrastructure in place in case they need to begin limiting access, and to have a mailing list that can be used to broadcast regulatory changes. The only things that I've heard about that way have been the closures of parks or trails for wildfires, hurricanes and avalanches. They keep making noises about instituting a quota system for the High Peaks and possibly the West Canada Lakes, but nothing ever seems to come of it.

In a lot of the other permit-only parks in the US, the procedures are fundamentally the same except that in addition to registering, you have to reserve a date on the web site, and sometimes pay a nominal fee (which barely covers the cost of administering the permit system). It's still open to all comers, there just has to be a slot available on your date of travel. For some immensely popular trips (the John Muir Trail through Yosemite, rafting on the Grand Canyon) there's a lottery system in place, because some people will be turned away in any given year. For most other areas, it's just "plan in advance and coordinate your dates". 

Most of the permit systems require a given date of arrival and a given first night's campsite. Given the vagaries of backcountry travel, they are flexible about subsequent campsites and exit dates. I've finished trips a day early or a day late and made unplanned detours without any particular hassle, even when my permit was checked.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Greg Troxel
In reply to this post by Colin Smale

Colin Smale <[hidden email]> writes:

> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are
> loads of people with that explicit permission.

The notion that all places that need permission are equivalent is
technically true in a non-useful way.

> To gain access to private property, you have to ask the landowner (or
> their agent). If you want to cross my back yard, you can't - it's
> private. But I can give you explicit permission.

You have said "private property", but that's not really the right
sense.   I think you mean "any property which is not by law open to all
people, such as a public right of way".

A military base in the US would not be considered "private property", as
it's ownedby the federal government, but you need permission.

> If the land is privately owned but the landowner makes no attempt to
> keep you out, then it's access=permissive. But in this case, you are not
> allowed in without *explicit* permission, so it's private. Unless (in
> the UK anyway) it is a Public Right of Way - then the landowner has no
> rights to keep you out, so the path may be access=yes even though the
> land it crosses may be access=no/private.

The point that I and Kenny made on imports is that there are two very
different situations:

  private, and really there is no expectation that some random person
  can easily/reasonably get permission or that it's reasonable to ask

  a permit system, where it's controlled somehow, but really you can go
  there after you follow the rules, and there's an expectation that
  permits will be issued to those who ask

This is essentially splitting what you are wanting to call private into
private and permit.  In terms of planning/etc., the notion that
permission will be granted after some application formality is entirely
different from a place where there is no expectation that permission
would be granted absent some pre-existing relationship.   I see this as
a first-class top-level distinction, partly because I don't see the
world through the UK lens of "public right of way vs evertyhing else".

Also, state parks that charge admission in your view should be labeled
access=private; paying for a park pass and filling out a permit
application are more or less the same thing.

Also, we aren't being consistent with such a strict definition.  There
are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
reasonable times.  So technically they should perhaps be permissive, but
really that does not match.  Arguably we should have
access=public_invited, which is subtly different from yes in that there
is no legal right.  But I think leaving them untagged (and thus yes) is
just fine and it's a problem that doesn't need addressing.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (186 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

Il giorno 20 lug 2016, alle ore 15:06, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>> To gain access to private property, you have to ask the landowner (or
>> their agent). If you want to cross my back yard, you can't - it's
>> private. But I can give you explicit permission.
>
> You have said "private property", but that's not really the right
> sense.   I think you mean "any property which is not by law open to all
> people, such as a public right of way".
>
> A military base in the US would not be considered "private property", as
> it's ownedby the federal government, but you need permission.


I think he's referring to a particular country. As a counterexample, in Germany as a pedestrian you have the right to access all land (outside of settlements) e.g. forests, farmland, meadows etc., unless it is fenced (what fortunately is rarely the case) or you would risk harming the crop.


cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Greg Troxel


sent from a phone

> Il giorno 20 lug 2016, alle ore 15:06, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> There
> are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
> That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
> rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
> reasonable times.


unless of course you look like a homeless person or are pursuing some kind of political campaign or are asking people for money etc. Really in these private pseudo public spaces the owner can expel people at will for no reason or any reason.


Cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Greg Troxel

Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> writes:

> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 20 lug 2016, alle ore 15:06, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>>
>> There
>> are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
>> That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
>> rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
>> reasonable times.
>
>
> unless of course you look like a homeless person or are pursuing some
> kind of political campaign or are asking people for money etc. Really
> in these private pseudo public spaces the owner can expel people at
> will for no reason or any reason.
True, except that they can't expel them for an unlawful reason :-)

But in all seriousness, these usually do not have access tags, and
that is not an actual problem.

I realize this is blurring rendering, but I see annotations on
access=private/no (which is good), and on access=permissive (which is
fine, for things that truly fit permissive).  But putting the permissive
icon on shopping mall ways would not serve the map users well.  So I
really just meant that 'pseudo-public' as you call it, which is a good
term, is another case that's between access=yes and access=permissive.

Something like
access=public_welcome_if_you_arent_doing_something_usually_objectionable_on_pseudopublic_land

but at least a little less verbose.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (186 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

Kevin Kenny-4
In reply to this post by Greg Troxel
Oops, accidentally sent this from the wrong mailbox again.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Also, we aren't being consistent with such a strict definition.  There
are many shopping malls near me, and the ways have no access tags.
That's wrong, as they aren't public rights of way.  But it is amazingly
rare, almost unheard of, to be told not to be there at least at
reasonable times.  So technically they should perhaps be permissive, but
really that does not match.  Arguably we should have
access=public_invited, which is subtly different from yes in that there
is no legal right.  But I think leaving them untagged (and thus yes) is
just fine and it's a problem that doesn't need addressing.

I thought that the issue of shopping malls was what 'access=customers'
was invented to handle.

But "access=customers" doesn't fit very well with the parks that I've
been working on.

I just want to be able to look at my map and answer the quick
question, "is there red tape that I have to plan for before I
plan a trip here?" If the answer is "yes," I can look at other
sources to find out what the requirements are - they may be as
simple as tucking my New York City access card in my pack,
or they may involve trying to book a specific date, or even
entering a permit lottery months in advance. In the vast majority
of places where I go, it's simply filling out a form on a website
or stopping off at a ranger station to do a little paperwork.

It's common in American law to say that something
"requires permission" when the permission is granted, always,
by policy, and the real requirement is that you request it,
as a means of notifying the authorities of your intentions.
We write laws that say, "thou shalt not," and then designate
the government agency that has the authority to waive the
law. Many "thou shalt not"s are really, "if you're planning
to do this, we really, really want to review your plans
first," and I've done a good many things with paperwork
that has titles like "Temporary Revocable Permit" or
"Special Temporary Operating Authority."

At this point, I'm not trying to encode all of the Ptolemaic
epicycles that tend to accrete on a permitting system. I'm willing to
say "access=permit foot=yes permit:website=..." as an
oversimplification of some actual regulation like:

"the facility charges horseback riders, drivers and passengers in
motor vehicles a fee for entry during the period that commences on the
Friday before the fourth Monday in May and ends on the second Monday
in October.  Entry on foot or by bicycle is free of charge at all
times, but a fee may be charged for use of the bathhouse and swimming
beach or for rental of a campsite.  Outside the listed dates, entry is
free but the bathhouse, boat launch and swimming beach are closed.
Fees are waived for New York State residents age 62 and over and for
holders of an Empire Passport access permit. The waiver does not apply
to campsite rental.  Roads are not maintained in winter and may be
accessible only by snowshoes, skis or snowmobile. Snowshoes or skis
are required at any time that there is more than an 8 inches (20 cm)
of snow on the trails. Snowmobiles and horses may be taken
only on trails designated for their use."

because someone seeing 'access=permit' can look on the web site for
the details.

I also would propose to use 'access=permit' (or whatever other consensus
emerges) for private lands whose owners participate in the ASK program.
I find that even when a landowner doesn't participate in the program
(yet), the permission card is a valuable tool - it looks governmental,
and reminds the owner that he's generally NOT opening himself
to liability by giving permission (which is the usual reason to refuse).



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

Richard Fairhurst
Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I just want to be able to look at my map and answer the
> quick question, "is there red tape that I have to plan for
> before I plan a trip here?"

Yep. I asked a similar question at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028504.html but there was no particular consensus.

access=permit seems to have moderate usage (slightly more than =license, which is in any case misspelled) so I'd go for that.

cheers
Richard
12