I don’t think so. Context:
So Mateusz was saying that access=private, or even (motor_)vehicle=private would fit for these roads. access=permit was not part of that debate.
1 Like
From what I remember it was discussed/proposed at mailing list around that time.
And =permit as acces value is Skunked term - Wikipedia
I have seen it used where it was rather =private (“only lot owners”) and where =permissive would be ideal.
Right now it is used everywhere where either permit is required with routinely granted permit, or entry is permitted, or permit is basically impossible to obtain…
1 Like
At least, ignoring the discussion on permissive etc. you have to change vehicle by motor_vehicle to allow unlimited access to bicycles and do not forget to map correctly for mofa and moped (I do not know exactly the difference between mofa’s Klasse A and B.
The ways are already tagged with bicycle=yes, mofa=yes (A), speed_pedelec=yes (P). Mopeds (B) need a permit too.
1 Like
Good to know, couldn’t find that in the discussion! 
Please no. Changing the definition of tags after they are in use is enormous effort, of which updating the wiki (and even reaching consensus) is just a tiny part.
I object specifically to the sentence: “where a permit is routinely granted to everyone requesting it”. I’d rather state this as ‘if there is an official way to request a permit’
If current value permit is likely to lead to mistagging by people who do not consult the wiki before they start using the tag, then perhaps it should be deprecated, and separate replacements invented like permit_restricted (i.e. permit that is restricted and may only be issued to some people) and permit_anyone (current meaning of permit, i.e. permit which is routinely issued to anyone that asks).
(of course better names would be welcome, if someone is interested in starting such proposal process)
3 Likes
Agreed. However, we cannot expect everyone to read the wiki about a specific value for any tag they ever use. Probably, many more people just see ‘permit’ in the editor and/or consult the Key:access page - hence part of the confusion.
1 Like
I would rather introduce new value that has more clear meaning.
1 Like
Once a consensus is reached, and proposal is agreed to (by voting), and wiki updated, the issues can be opened for editors (and other data consumers) to offer new values instead of now-deprecated ones, and even warn about existing deprecated values and offer replacements.
So while updating the editors to not offer confusing values is the final result one wants, prerequisite for that is that there is a discussion and consensus about new values (and all work related to that; as noted above).
Why would permit need to be deprecated? As far as I can see the value is typically used for a range of situations where you do in fact need a permit. That range is just wider than the Wiki page says…
Wouldn’t it be more practical to introduce a subkey with values such as permit=lottery, permit=fee and permit=residents? The wiki page could then simply be updated to “allow” use of the tag for all situations requiring a permit of any kind.
This would also pave the way for tags such as permit:description, permit:website, permit:phone, permit:name or permit:ref, if necessary with made-up values such as permit:ref=gent_autovrij_gebied. If a specific tag is on all of these roads and not on any other roads, then that a sophisticated router would know which roads you can use if you have that permit.
See also
Search results | OpenStreetMap Taginfo, some of these are already in existence though undocumented.
Also, to the Belgians: I hope you don’t mind us all chipping in (no pun intended) in your local community discussion! Discourse encourages this somewhat, by showing country community discussions to everyone under suggested topics.
1 Like
Because it is used for both “everyone is automatically permitted” and “you need to apply for permit and you will get it” and “you need to be approved to visit military base to get permit”
foot=permit motor_vehicle=permit with different permit situation would be not taggable
2 Likes
Example of such a case where foot and motor_vehicle have a different permit situation: Marche-les-Dames military training center that you can enter on foot to go climbing if you’re member of an alpine club, otherwise (on foot, or with a vehicle) you need military clearance.
Using some “permit” tagging for military clearance would make that tagging really broad, but I don’t object if we can clarify it in a straightforward way.
Hi Guys,
Thank you all for your feedback.
At this point I have the feeling there no 100% consensus on the right approach.
- some suggest to use new tags/naming
- other suggest to keep the vehicle and set it to private or permit/conditional
I also agree that it could be better with any other way of adding more information, but for that I think OSM is not ready as there are no guidelines that 100% solve this question.
Keeping in mind that Openstreetmap purpose is to map what you see and not for purpose + that on the traffic sign it clearly (and simply) says ‘only for permit holders’, my suggestion would be to set vehicle=‘permit’ instead of ‘no’ as it better clarify the current/actual situation. It also checkes the boxes for 90% of the ‘permit’ definition.
I would be happy to help to transition at a later stage to a better naming/tagging convention but for now imho vehicle=permit seems te way to go.
I hope I can count on your support for this approach?
Kind regards
is anyone able to apply for that permit and get it?
Currently the roads are tagged with vehicle=no and yet I see vehicles driving on those roads every day.
and yes everyone can apply for a permit, most/all of them will get the permit if you have a valid reason.
1 Like
that is vehicle=private
1 Like
Also good to me, so i tag all the roads vehicle=private 
Thonyv asked me to take further care of this. I’m planning to map these using
vehicle=private-
private=<something> -
<something>=BE:gent:autovrij_gebied
I’m looking to use something else than just permit, so that it can also be used in conditional restrictions (e.g. vehicle:conditional=<something> @ (18:00-11:00)).
I’m looking for suggestions for what the <something> could be. In the best case, it’s a concise term that conveys that when a permit is requested, the case is evaluated by the authority, and not just given to anyone.
The inverse, changing the existing permit tag to something that conveys that permits are just a formality, could also be desirable. We could keep this in mind already to choose symmetrical tags.
1 Like
This is the best I could come up with so far:
exceptional_permit
The current proposal has a disadvantage: It’s difficult to tag different rules that apply to different types of vehicles on the same road.
I agree with @Pieter_Vander_Vennet to better stay with existing tags and use the conditional syntax, like:
vehicle = no
vehicle:conditional = yes @ (exceptional_permit = BE:gent:autovrij_gebied)
That could be interpreted right out-of-the-box by any tool that knows about conditional tags and (at least) be displayed to the user to read and evaluate manually.
If the access rules are as strict as implied in this thread, I would opt for using “no” instead of “private” - which are these “private” vehicles that are allowed to enter?
I also agree with @Martin_Borsje that the restriction seems to be for motor_vehicle, not for vehicle in general.