4 ms·

We are both.

• tonymet 3y ago
  The taxpayers are the patrons. The API consumers are the customers. When the customers make a lot of API calls or cause security issues, the patrons have to pay.
  • haswell 3y ago
    I'd argue that this is an overly restrictive framing of the situation for a few reasons. First, patron is just another word for customer. I understand that you're using it to distinguish between two customer types: 1. The end user (presumably a future park visitor) 2. The intermediary providing an experience to the same end users (who are presumably using the intermediary to plan a future park visit) But this is not a formal distinction, and I think it's necessary to zoom out and look at the players involved and the nature of their relationship with the NPS. Is it not true that "Patrons" are still likely to be the initiators of those API calls? Is it not also true that the "Customers" exist within the same tax system as the "Patrons"? If I go to nps.gov as a "Patron", I'm directly consuming NPS resources. If I access NPS information via a site that provides an alternative experience, I (the future park goer) am still the primary beneficiary of the API call. Let's say I build a project that calls these APIs and my goal is to help people who have accessibility needs find the parks that are most amenable to their situation. Let's say this is a passion project and I'm not doing this to make money. What you're proposing would make such a project non-viable. And I think there's a strong case to be made that the experience described in the last paragraph will consume fewer NPS resources than navigating through NPS page after page to find what I'm looking for. And in the end, if the information helped a park goer find a place to spend their money, this is a net positive for the NPS.