Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Feb 4, 2020, at 3:29 AM, Florimond Berthoux  
> wrote:
> 
> I agree that buildings/sheds should not be used for this key, since we cannot 
> precise the type of "rack" inside the shed/building.



I agree that “=shed” should not be a value.

building=shed
amenity=bicycle_parking
bicycle_parking=foobar (whatever method secures the bike inside). 

I would tag this using the alternative method mentioned above, but there are 
3,700 uses of =shed already. 

Perhaps discouraging this value is a good idea. 

Javbw








___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Florimond Berthoux]

The bicycle_parking key is used for lots of things...
>
> buildings/sheds
>
> stands/racks
>
> A very poor key!
>
>
> I think the key should be replaced.
>

I agree that buildings/sheds should not be used for this key, since we
cannot precise the type of "rack" inside the shed/building.
building or indoor can be used to precise that feature.

Otherwise the key should not be replaced, it's already widely used, and
building/shed count only for 3% of them (5400 values).
Only those two values can be depreciate.


> Buildings and sheds already have a key building=* so those values can be
> depreciated.
>
>
> Stands/racks are all indications of how the bike is held while parked.
>
> bicycle_holding=stand/rack/bollard/post/* ?
>
>
> Then the issue of securing the bicycle?
>
> bicycle_secure=lock,supervised,provided_lock,*
>
>
> ???
>

Useless I think, bicycle_parking is good enough for that.

-- 
Florimond Berthoux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[pangoSE]

On 2020-02-03 08:41, Warin wrote:

On 3/2/20 6:32 pm, pang...@riseup.net wrote:




Then the issue of securing the bicycle?

bicycle_secure=lock,supervised,provided_lock,*

Could you elaborate what each of these mean?

I think bicycle_security is better



I would like to improve on this key name too ... but for the moment ..


values (subject to change, improvements and additions)


lock - a lock can be used to secure the bicycle to some fixed object 
-usually part of the holding mechanism.


supervised - a human watches over the area

provided_lock - a locking mechanism is provided, usually as part of 
the structure (shed/building etc)




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[John Willis via Tagging]

Okay, a lot of notes: 

Javbw

> On Feb 3, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> 
> I
> surface=paved says nothing about if the bicycle can be secured and what too.

Surface= tag is different from =surface value. 

Amenity=parking 
Parking=surface 
Surface=asphalt

For cars.

Amenity=bicycle_parking
Bicycle_parking=surface
Surface=asphalt 

For bikes says the same thing. 

But for bikes, there are a myriad of options for the parking. The most common 
are racks (63 percent) and then various others. 

Most of those are covered=yes or covered=no (with a simple roof or overhang. 

> The bicycle_parking key is used for lots of things...
> 
> buildings/sheds
> 
> stands/racks
> 
> A very poor key!

I think the bike parking key is **primarily concerned with how the bicycle is 
restrained**. Every value but =floor is about that. Everything else is 
secondary. 

By combining it with a structure (or as an encompassing area of many 
structures, such as individual rows of sheds) or as a tag on other structures 
(multilevel car parking or building=yes) it is very flexible in how it is used. 

> I think the key should be replaced.

For the 150,000 uses.of most of the racks, it is *perfect*. It just needs the 
rough edges take care of. 
> 
> 
> Buildings and sheds already have a key building=* so those values can be 
> depreciated.

They want to use it in conjunction with building=yes. 

Tagging the type of restraints (such as individual sheds) makes sense.

> 
> 
> Stands/racks are all indications of how the bike is held while parked.
> 
> bicycle_holding=stand/rack/bollard/post/* ?

This is the heart of bicycle_parking already 

> Then the issue of securing the bicycle?
> 
> bicycle_secure=lock,supervised,provided_lock,*

Supervised=*  already exists it doesn’t speak to how the bike is physically 
secured. 

Provided automatic locks are not for you, but for the payment operators (afaik) 
- I could break any bike out of the tethers or tire hooks in less time than it 
takes to tie your shoes. Securing the bike is something your own lock should 
do. 

But the most necessary option is “no” option to secure, because the others are 
all implicitly securable with your own equipment - yet 2 documented ones do not 
inherently give you the option to secure it to something.

As far as these automatic or supplied locking mechanisms are, is there some key 
for parking lots that tag the specific car parking fee enforcement, such as the 
retractable flap, bollard, or tire block? Perhaps that would be a good model 
for tagging these type of payment enforcement locks. 

In summary, I am only worried about =floors and some way to say there is some 
explicit tag for no way to secure the bike to another object. 






___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:59:40 +0100>>From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
>>>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools">    
>>Subject: Re: [Tagging] change 
>bicycle_parking=floor to surface>Message-ID: 
><8aa7582f-13d3-486c-9c47-87ca8a1f8...@gmail.com>>Content-Type: text/plain; 
>charset=us-ascii>>>>sent from a phone>>> Il giorno 3 feb 2020, alle ore 04:32, 
>John Willis via Tagging  ha scritto:>>>> All of the 
>other bicycle_parking values *imply an ability to lock your bike to some 
>object*, but =ground_slots and =floor (and =surface) imply *do not*, because 
>it is assumed that cyclists know about this already.>>>IMHO =surface does not 
>imply anything on the presence of stands, but rather should be interpreted 
>like parking=surface, as opposed to parking=underground/multi-storey.>>We 
>should distinguish the type of parking and the kind of stands with different 
>tags>>Cheers Martin>>
+1   
I agree that "surface" should be used to mean the same for bicycles as for cars 
(i.e. not underground, or multi-storey), perhaps with "covered=yes", if there 
is something to keep the rain or sun off.
If we want to show what security apparatus is provided, could we use 
"security={rail/post/hoop/lock_provided/whatever}"  ?
The tag "security" is currently used only 580 times and most values seem to be 
security company names.  I cannot find any wiki documentation for it, but using 
it to show the types of security device provided should not conflict with 
current usage.
Regards,Peter


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 3 feb 2020, alle ore 04:32, John Willis via Tagging 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> All of the other bicycle_parking values *imply an ability to lock your bike 
> to some object*, but =ground_slots and =floor (and =surface) imply *do not*, 
> because it is assumed that cyclists know about this already.


IMHO =surface does not imply anything on the presence of stands, but rather 
should be interpreted like parking=surface, as opposed to 
parking=underground/multi-storey.

We should distinguish the type of parking and the kind of stands with different 
tags

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Warin]

On 3/2/20 6:32 pm, pang...@riseup.net wrote:




I don't think the solution of using surface will do.


surface=paved says nothing about if the bicycle can be secured and what
too.

Nor does it say anything about how the bike is held.


The bicycle_parking key is used for lots of things...

buildings/sheds

stands/racks

A very poor key!


I think the key should be replaced.

I agree. It is a bad idea to lump different concepts in one key.



Buildings and sheds already have a key building=* so those values can
be
depreciated.


Stands/racks are all indications of how the bike is held while parked.

bicycle_holding=stand/rack/bollard/post/* ?

I like this.



Then the issue of securing the bicycle?

bicycle_secure=lock,supervised,provided_lock,*

Could you elaborate what each of these mean?

I think bicycle_security is better



I would like to improve on this key name too ... but for the moment ..


values (subject to change, improvements and additions)


lock - a lock can be used to secure the bicycle to some fixed object 
-usually part of the holding mechanism.


supervised - a human watches over the area

provided_lock - a locking mechanism is provided, usually as part of the 
structure (shed/building etc)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[pangose]

>
>I don't think the solution of using surface will do.
>
>
>surface=paved says nothing about if the bicycle can be secured and what
>too.
>
>Nor does it say anything about how the bike is held.
>
>
>The bicycle_parking key is used for lots of things...
>
>buildings/sheds
>
>stands/racks
>
>A very poor key!
>
>
>I think the key should be replaced.

I agree. It is a bad idea to lump different concepts in one key.

>
>
>Buildings and sheds already have a key building=* so those values can
>be 
>depreciated.
>
>
>Stands/racks are all indications of how the bike is held while parked.
>
>bicycle_holding=stand/rack/bollard/post/* ?

I like this. 

>
>
>Then the issue of securing the bicycle?
>
>bicycle_secure=lock,supervised,provided_lock,*

Could you elaborate what each of these mean?

I think bicycle_security is better

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Warin]

On 3/2/20 3:45 pm, John Willis via Tagging wrote:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bicycle_parking

looking over the discussion page, they added =floor in sept 2017 (in 
response to various questions) to not only be a =surface substitute, 
but for it to be combined with building=yes to tag fully enclosed 
bicycle parking buildings (not sheds, nor covered=yes roofs, but full 
buildings). I understand the reason - so the type of stands can be 
tagged onto an existing building=yes polygon (rather than using 
something like parking=multilevel).


Currently, =floor makes up 0.15% of usage (256 uses), the lowest of 
all the documented values (compared to stands at 109,000 / 63%).


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bicycle_parking#values

this may seem like a little thing, but there will thousands more if 
just Japan is properly mapped.



I understand the need.

I don't think the solution of using surface will do.


surface=paved says nothing about if the bicycle can be secured and what too.

Nor does it say anything about how the bike is held.


The bicycle_parking key is used for lots of things...

buildings/sheds

stands/racks

A very poor key!


I think the key should be replaced.


Buildings and sheds already have a key building=* so those values can be 
depreciated.



Stands/racks are all indications of how the bike is held while parked.

bicycle_holding=stand/rack/bollard/post/* ?


Then the issue of securing the bicycle?

bicycle_secure=lock,supervised,provided_lock,*


???




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[John Willis via Tagging]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bicycle_parking 


looking over the discussion page, they added =floor in sept 2017 (in response 
to various questions) to not only be a =surface substitute, but for it to be 
combined with building=yes to tag fully enclosed bicycle parking buildings (not 
sheds, nor covered=yes roofs, but full buildings). I understand the reason - so 
the type of stands can be tagged onto an existing building=yes polygon (rather 
than using something like parking=multilevel). 

Currently, =floor makes up 0.15% of usage (256 uses), the lowest of all the 
documented values (compared to stands at 109,000 / 63%). 

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bicycle_parking#values 


this may seem like a little thing, but there will thousands more if just Japan 
is properly mapped. 

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Feb 3, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> But it will not be replaced by the surface key as the tag represents 2 things.


I think trying to represent the two ideas is too difficult. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking 


All of the other bicycle_parking values *imply an ability to lock your bike to 
some object*, but =ground_slots and =floor (and =surface) imply *do not*, 
because it is assumed that cyclists know about this already. The wiki has a 
note: “no security” , but the security level is not represented in any of the 
values for this tag. it is all assumed.

In places with high numbers of “surface” parking lots, this is well known -  
but might be unexpected in places outside Asia. it should be explicitly tagged. 
  
So I think it is too much to ask of these two existing tag definitions (or 
=surface) to do double-duty in this manner, as none of the other tags do either.

the implication for these two tags should become an explicit “no” via a new tag.

We should change =floor to =surface 

and 

create a bicycle_parking:lock_point=no tag and add it to both =ground_slots and 
=surface in the wiki (or “lockable” or some other similar value). 

It should be easy to add an iD preset to include it.

There may be incidental poles (such as shelter supports for covered=yes) that 
would allow a few to be locked informally, but that’s not available to all 
users. When there is no rack/stand meant to hold bikes in position in any way 
(=surface) and when there is no formal affordance for securing the bike 
(:lock_point=no), both of these tags should be used. 

That should cover the situation.

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[John Willis via Tagging]

On the OSM wiki for bicycle_parking=, there are ~10 different values for 
racks/stands/trees/bollards of various types. Our cup runneth over. 

we are talking about one value, =floor, which would be called =surface if it 
was car parking. 

I want to change that value to =surface before =floor becomes more widespread, 
so “parking” tagging is more uniform, 
besides the fact that “floor” is a bad value for what it represents. 

Javbw  

> On Feb 3, 2020, at 8:42 AM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> A possibility: bicycle_rack=yes/no?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Kevin Kenny]

A possibility: bicycle_rack=yes/no?

On Sun, Feb 2, 2020, 17:04 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/2/20 5:34 am, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
>
> Bicycle parking is full of different kinds of stands.
>
> “Floor” is Currently the the lack of anything - just an open area to park.
>
> But
>
> A) “floor” doesn’t mean “lockable” or not. All the others describe stands and 
> poles and whatnot, but  ** “Floor” doesn't explicitly mean “no locking 
> affordance” -  It’s implied.** The same is true for =surface or =ground or 
> =flat.
>
> B)  A designated painted square of outdoor asphalt with a bicycle painted on 
> the ground is the same thing as the well established parking=surface - but 
> somehow requires a Different word for bikes? **that is inconsistent.**
>
> A large majority of bike parking in Japan/Asia is this type of parking. 
> Stands/two-tier are common in urban paid parking/schools/apartments, but ~80% 
> or more are just designated flat ground with a sign - just like a parking 
> lot. The bike parking I map most often is this type - formal, painted, 
> designated flat ground for bike parking with no stands, loops, rails, or 
> anything else for all the bikes to be chained to, covered=yes or not.
>
> C) “floor” is used for indoor building location descriptions. (layer is for 
> separating logically overlapping data features, not for this). “Floor” 
> implies indoors to me. Outside doesn't have a floor. the “ground slots” value 
> isn’t called “floor slots”.
>
> These 3 reasons make it a poor choice over The well established parking value 
> =surface, and since they are basically the same, I think we should use the 
> same tag value for both.
>
>  I agree that it is a poor tag.
>
> But it will not be replaced by the surface key as the tag represents 2 
> things. Until the tag can be replaced by tags that indicate both those things 
> then this tag will remain.
>
> In this case the OSM meaning of 'floor' does mean 'not lockable' and a flat 
> area.
>
> So .. develop a tag to indicate that 'lockable' or 'non lockable' capability 
> and then the surface key can also be used, thus replacing 'floor'.
>
>
>
>
> Javbw
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2020, at 11:07 PM, Florimond Berthoux 
>   wrote:
>
> I think it's not exactly the same feature, one thing interesting in the 
> bicycle_parking for cyclist it to know if you can secure your bike.
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Warin]

On 3/2/20 5:34 am, John Willis via Tagging wrote:

Bicycle parking is full of different kinds of stands.

“Floor” is Currently the the lack of anything - just an open area to park.

But

A) “floor” doesn’t mean “lockable” or not. All the others describe stands and 
poles and whatnot, but  ** “Floor” doesn't explicitly mean “no locking 
affordance” -  It’s implied.** The same is true for =surface or =ground or 
=flat.

B)  A designated painted square of outdoor asphalt with a bicycle painted on 
the ground is the same thing as the well established parking=surface - but 
somehow requires a Different word for bikes? **that is inconsistent.**

A large majority of bike parking in Japan/Asia is this type of parking. 
Stands/two-tier are common in urban paid parking/schools/apartments, but ~80% 
or more are just designated flat ground with a sign - just like a parking lot. 
The bike parking I map most often is this type - formal, painted, designated 
flat ground for bike parking with no stands, loops, rails, or anything else for 
all the bikes to be chained to, covered=yes or not.

C) “floor” is used for indoor building location descriptions. (layer is for 
separating logically overlapping data features, not for this). “Floor” implies 
indoors to me. Outside doesn't have a floor. the “ground slots” value isn’t 
called “floor slots”.

These 3 reasons make it a poor choice over The well established parking value 
=surface, and since they are basically the same, I think we should use the same 
tag value for both.


I agree that it is a poor tag.

But it will not be replaced by the surface key as the tag represents 2 things. 
Until the tag can be replaced by tags that indicate both those things then this 
tag will remain.

In this case the OSM meaning of 'floor' does mean 'not lockable' and a flat 
area.

So .. develop a tag to indicate that 'lockable' or 'non lockable' capability 
and then the surface key can also be used, thus replacing 'floor'.




Javbw


On Feb 1, 2020, at 11:07 PM, Florimond Berthoux  
wrote:

I think it's not exactly the same feature, one thing interesting in the 
bicycle_parking for cyclist it to know if you can secure your bike.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[John Willis via Tagging]

Bicycle parking is full of different kinds of stands. 

“Floor” is Currently the the lack of anything - just an open area to park. 

But 

A) “floor” doesn’t mean “lockable” or not. All the others describe stands and 
poles and whatnot, but  ** “Floor” doesn't explicitly mean “no locking 
affordance” -  It’s implied.** The same is true for =surface or =ground or 
=flat.

B)  A designated painted square of outdoor asphalt with a bicycle painted on 
the ground is the same thing as the well established parking=surface - but 
somehow requires a Different word for bikes? **that is inconsistent.**

A large majority of bike parking in Japan/Asia is this type of parking. 
Stands/two-tier are common in urban paid parking/schools/apartments, but ~80% 
or more are just designated flat ground with a sign - just like a parking lot. 
The bike parking I map most often is this type - formal, painted, designated 
flat ground for bike parking with no stands, loops, rails, or anything else for 
all the bikes to be chained to, covered=yes or not. 

C) “floor” is used for indoor building location descriptions. (layer is for 
separating logically overlapping data features, not for this). “Floor” implies 
indoors to me. Outside doesn't have a floor. the “ground slots” value isn’t 
called “floor slots”. 

These 3 reasons make it a poor choice over The well established parking value 
=surface, and since they are basically the same, I think we should use the same 
tag value for both. 


Javbw

> On Feb 1, 2020, at 11:07 PM, Florimond Berthoux 
>  wrote:
> 
> I think it's not exactly the same feature, one thing interesting in the 
> bicycle_parking for cyclist it to know if you can secure your bike.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Thibault Molleman]

Isn't layer= meant for what floor it's on.
(or are you thinking of bicycle_parking=two-tier (see bottom of the page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking )



On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 15:07, Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think it's not exactly the same feature, one thing interesting in the
> bicycle_parking for cyclist it to know if you can secure your bike.
> With floor value I know there is nothing to lock my bike with.
> Whereas surface value for parking tag just say that is a parking facility
> on the ground (not underground or in a multi-storey).
>
> For instance you can have a bicycle_parking=floor in a parking facility
> parking=multi-storey.
>
> Though I don't know the best english word for this feature, as long as
> it's documented it's fine for me.
>
> Le ven. 31 janv. 2020 à 07:46, John Willis via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking
>>
>> It lists “floor” as the value for a wide open outdoor space with no
>> stands or other affordances designated for parking bicycles.
>>
>> this seems weird to me. the ground / asphalt area next to a supermarket
>> is not a “floor”.
>>
>> we use “surface” in car parking lots, and there are many of other types
>> of indoor tags for tagging when a bike is in a building or shed (similar to
>> parking=multilevel).
>>
>> I think that the values be standardized and the wiki changed.
>>
>> there is 60 uses of (undocumented) =surface and ~260 uses of (documented)
>> =floor.
>>
>> we should standardize how we tag parking lots for any vehicle if it is
>> just a flat outdoor surface.
>>
>> Javbw
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Florimond Berthoux]

Hi,

I think it's not exactly the same feature, one thing interesting in the
bicycle_parking for cyclist it to know if you can secure your bike.
With floor value I know there is nothing to lock my bike with.
Whereas surface value for parking tag just say that is a parking facility
on the ground (not underground or in a multi-storey).

For instance you can have a bicycle_parking=floor in a parking facility
parking=multi-storey.

Though I don't know the best english word for this feature, as long as it's
documented it's fine for me.

Le ven. 31 janv. 2020 à 07:46, John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking
>
> It lists “floor” as the value for a wide open outdoor space with no stands
> or other affordances designated for parking bicycles.
>
> this seems weird to me. the ground / asphalt area next to a supermarket is
> not a “floor”.
>
> we use “surface” in car parking lots, and there are many of other types of
> indoor tags for tagging when a bike is in a building or shed (similar to
> parking=multilevel).
>
> I think that the values be standardized and the wiki changed.
>
> there is 60 uses of (undocumented) =surface and ~260 uses of (documented)
> =floor.
>
> we should standardize how we tag parking lots for any vehicle if it is
> just a flat outdoor surface.
>
> Javbw
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Florimond Berthoux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[pangose]

I suggest we use additional tags to specify this more precisely.

I think the lack of supports should be tagged supports=no or bicycle_support=no.
Additionally lock_support=no or lock_stands=12. 
I'm not English so I don't know what would be the best word for these devices. 
In Danish they are probably called låsestolpe (lock pole) or låsebue (lock 
bow). In swedish I would call them låsbåge (lock bow) or perhaps låshjälp (lock 
help). 
 WDYT?

On January 31, 2020 10:04:02 AM GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Usually the bicycle rests on something. And if you going to leave it
>for 
>any time then locking it to some thing is a good idea.
>
>Floor may be a poor choice? Flat may be more descriptive? There is 
>nothing there for bicycles to lean on or be fastened to.
>
>(Yes I know some parts of the world bicycles normally come with stands 
>so they can be self suporting. But most bicycles hare have no stands.)
>
>
>On 31/1/20 5:50 pm, Thibault Molleman wrote:
>> I agree, was pretty confused when I saw that as well (after I had 
>> mapped a bunch of regular parkings and then did some bicycle ones)
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 07:46 John Willis via Tagging 
>> mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking
>>
>> It lists “floor” as the value for a wide open outdoor space with
>> no stands or other affordances designated for parking bicycles.
>>
>> this seems weird to me. the ground / asphalt area next to a
>> supermarket is not a “floor”.
>>
>> we use “surface” in car parking lots, and there are many of other
>> types of indoor tags for tagging when a bike is in a building or
>> shed (similar to parking=multilevel).
>>
>> I think that the values be standardized and the wiki changed.
>>
>> there is 60 uses of (undocumented) =surface and ~260 uses of
>> (documented) =floor.
>>
>> we should standardize how we tag parking lots for any vehicle if
>> it is just a flat outdoor surface.
>>
>> Javbw
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Warin]

Usually the bicycle rests on something. And if you going to leave it for 
any time then locking it to some thing is a good idea.


Floor may be a poor choice? Flat may be more descriptive? There is 
nothing there for bicycles to lean on or be fastened to.


(Yes I know some parts of the world bicycles normally come with stands 
so they can be self suporting. But most bicycles hare have no stands.)



On 31/1/20 5:50 pm, Thibault Molleman wrote:
I agree, was pretty confused when I saw that as well (after I had 
mapped a bunch of regular parkings and then did some bicycle ones)


On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 07:46 John Willis via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking

It lists “floor” as the value for a wide open outdoor space with
no stands or other affordances designated for parking bicycles.

this seems weird to me. the ground / asphalt area next to a
supermarket is not a “floor”.

we use “surface” in car parking lots, and there are many of other
types of indoor tags for tagging when a bike is in a building or
shed (similar to parking=multilevel).

I think that the values be standardized and the wiki changed.

there is 60 uses of (undocumented) =surface and ~260 uses of
(documented) =floor.

we should standardize how we tag parking lots for any vehicle if
it is just a flat outdoor surface.

Javbw


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Thibault Molleman]

I agree, was pretty confused when I saw that as well (after I had mapped a
bunch of regular parkings and then did some bicycle ones)

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 07:46 John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking
>
> It lists “floor” as the value for a wide open outdoor space with no stands
> or other affordances designated for parking bicycles.
>
> this seems weird to me. the ground / asphalt area next to a supermarket is
> not a “floor”.
>
> we use “surface” in car parking lots, and there are many of other types of
> indoor tags for tagging when a bike is in a building or shed (similar to
> parking=multilevel).
>
> I think that the values be standardized and the wiki changed.
>
> there is 60 uses of (undocumented) =surface and ~260 uses of (documented)
> =floor.
>
> we should standardize how we tag parking lots for any vehicle if it is
> just a flat outdoor surface.
>
> Javbw
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging