Proposal talk:Specific permits

Also see the community forum where discussion happened too.

Deprecation possibility

What's the potential replacement of access=permit then? For reference, I discussed likely differences with reservation=* in Talk:Tag:access=permit#booking required .
—— Kovposch (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Redefinition options

You used private=* here, but this prevents showing who can apply for that *=exceptional_permit . Aside from the 4619 valid private=* (excluding the unclear 5978 private=yes , some even without *=private ) , there are 234 newer parking:*:private=* .
In relationship with the above , instead of https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/draft-feature-proposal-specific-permits-exceptional-permit/104071/6 @Minh Nguyen: formally accepting the redefinition of access=permit in practice, I imagine we can keep permit=* only, while deprecating access=permit . This can be used similar to reservation=* and membership=* . Then you can have eg permit=routine and permit=exceptional . Also eg permit=limited for ones with long queues, high wait time, or intense competition (with some subjectivity, as the demand can't be shown with the supply by eg permit:count=* alone ) cf Talk:Tag:access=permit#"If permit is hard to obtain, then it is typically access=private" .
I personally find user group should be access:for=* following other *:for=* . Not private=* .
private=* might be used for the privateness. Eg assigned parking spots can be private=individual . This is not the same as *=residents . Using eg residents=individual makes it unable to be used for *=employees (I prefer *=staff to avoid any misunderstanding for "employer" grade personnels) , and perhaps students=* (does it exist?) . We don't need a residents=* , employees=* , students=* for each separately. I can't think of how to do the rest generically yet.
—— Kovposch (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)