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 > <florimond.berth...@gmail.com> 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
