Talk:Tag:access=permit

"If permit is hard to obtain, then it is typically access=private"

If the road or land belongs to the state or municipality, then it should be access=no in my opinion. access=private seems wrong in that case. --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I added "or access=no." (though note that access=private does not mean "privately owned". It means "access is heavily restricted, open only to narrow group".) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Does that mean that a municipality-owned road that the general public is not allowed to use, but for which the municipality grants permission in exceptional cases (e.g. for the operators of a restaurant and the mountain railway, for people that live there and for forestry workers) is access=private rather than access=no? By the way, it seems that highway=unclassified isn't suitable for such a road, as it isn't a "public access road", right? --Dafadllyn (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"municipality-owned road that the general public is not allowed to use, but for which the municipality grants permission in exceptional cases" - yes, that would fit. But remember about pedestrian and cyclists! Often either foot=yes + bicycle=yes is needed or restriction applies only to vehicles, so can be tagged with vehicle=private or applies just to motor vehicles and can be tagged with motor_vehicle=private.

highway=unclassified is quite unfortunately named as it is not "road of unknown class" (that is highway=road). Almost all highway=unclassified are public access.

I recommend consulting with you local community - there are often multiple ways to tag the same thing and there may be local preference for one of them, there may be also some local legal peculiarities (for example, in some countries cyclists and horses are legally considered as vehicles - and in some not)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Yes, the restriction only applies to motor vehicles. --Dafadllyn (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Then I would tag it with motor_vehicle=private (disclaimer - consulting local mappers may be a good idea, maybe I missed something) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

booking required

I'm assuming that "booking required" would also be access=permit, in the case where you need to first book, ie. get permission, ie. get a permit before you can access/use the facility, and where it's generally granted (in the case of a booking, usually during available times when not otherwise booked out). I'll add this to the wiki page to help people searching find it. --Aharvey (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not the same. You could still be required to book after getting some licence to use that facility. Then access=permit becomes useless at showing both. There is reservation=* , and overlap with membership=* in some sense.
access=permit may imply every one has to be licensed, eg in traveling. Bookings might be done in tables, sessions, and groups.
--- Kovposch (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The difference isn't clear to me. Are you saying that access=permit means you need to request permission (which is usually granted) but you may not need to lock in specific times/days, but reservation=required means you must lock in a time/day? --Aharvey (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not Kovposch, but I would say "yes": this is also how I understand their comment and I agree with it. —M!dgard (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Mostly yes, but it seems a good question. There's no established practice for such details yet, nor is there much explicit provision in Proposed_features/access=permit#Permit_contact_information:_the_permit:*_keys originally. --- Kovposch (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)