New quest - leisure=pitch access

[vehrmann]

General

Affected tag(s) to be modified/added: access Question asked: Who is allowed to use this pitch?

Checklist

Checklist for quest suggestions (see guidelines):

• [x] 🚧 To be added tag is established and has a useful purpose

Out of ~2 million pitches 4.3% have the tag access (taginfo). It is very useful for finding public pitches, especially pitches which are typically available for both public and private/customers'/members' usage (e.g. soccer pitches in Germany).

• [x] 🤔 Any answer the user can give must have an equivalent tagging (Quest should not reappear to other users when solved by one)

Same answers as for [leisure=playground][access=*]: yes / private / customers / permissive Where private also could cover members of sports clubs (could maybe also be covered by access=permit, couldn't find anything in the wiki)

• [x] 🐿️ Easily answerable by everyone from the outside but a survey is necessary

  It should be obvious either by no sign at all (=public), a sign stating the access (e.g. for members only) or a fence/locked area

• [x] 💤 Not an overwhelming percentage of quests have the same answer (No spam)
• [x] 🕓 Applies to a reasonable number of map data (Worth the effort)

Ideas for implementation

Element selection: Similar to the playground access quest (#1134 and #3712)

Metadata needed: Don't think so.

Proposed UI: Icon combined with the key of e.g. the bicycle parking access quest

Answers Similar to the playground access quest (#1134 and #3712) Maybe inlcude member access

[westnordost]

Unlike for playgrounds though, you would not usually find a sign "for members of this sport club only" or similar on pitches that belong to a sports club.

[vehrmann]

Maybe leisure=sports_centre could also be included in this quest, in this case especially to distinguish between customer and private/member access.

A few examples: access=yes (=publicly available) for a sportsground operated by the city: example access=customers for swimming pools: example access=private for professional soccer training areas: example access=permit (=for members only) for tennis courts: example

The quest should also resurvey/check already (not by a SC-quest) tagged elements as many elements are tagged incorrectly (example where it should be access=customers instead of access=yes).

[vehrmann]

Unlike for playgrounds though, you would not usually find a sign "for members of this sport club only" or similar on pitches that belong to a sports club.

In that case a pitch would be fenced or access would be restricted in some other way. I don't know a pitch without a sign which would be easily/legally be usable but belongs to a sports club.

[westnordost]

Well, I know plenty

[westnordost]

So I am closing this on the grounds that I am not convinced that this information is always apparent (for pitches that are NOT public):

🐿️ Easily answerable by everyone from the outside but a survey is necessary

Additionally, the cases

access=customers for swimming pools: example access=private for professional soccer training areas: example access=permit (=for members only) for tennis courts: example

would be really hard to distinguish for surveyors. If e.g. a tennis court belongs to a sports center / club, it doesn't necessarily mean that you need to be a member to play there. It could be that they have day tickets too. And it goes the other way as well (maybe not for tennis courts, I don't know): it could even be a professional training areas where you can't even be a member to play. Again, these two are also hard to distinguish and certainly not from the outside, which also does not suffice the ...

🕵️ Publicly accessible: The information the users are supposed to collect must be easily accessible from the outside, don't lead users into trouble. I.e. users will not be able to answer reliably if a building has a basement or not, if a restaurant has toilets or not etc. without entering it.

guideline.