>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:59:40 +0100>>From: Martin Koppenhoefer
><dieterdre...@gmail.com>>>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools">
><tagging@openstreetmap.org>>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 <tagging@openstreetmap.org> 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
