Talk:Key:bicycle parking

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion about a typology for bicycle parking goes here. Please use the Add Topic button above, to add remarks about the main page, and consider using Template:Resolved and its friends under headings so that users can quickly scan through the list of discussion topics and pick out unresolved issues.

bicycle_parking=rack?

  • Coathanger racks: Common new rack design (as seen on Flickr.) Generally only secures one wheel, but can also secure the frame with the right lock.
  • Generic rack: Sturdy structure with the same principle, often seen in schools (again on Flickr.)

Are these worthy of a separate bicycle_parking=rack designation? Ash 00:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

in my opition yes. as oposed to stands they can only handle one lock per bike (relatively good security) but they can get crowded --MichalP 14:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. There is definitely a distinction that should be made here. --Oddityoverseer (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


  • W rack: A wavy pipe in a single plane, offering only one point to lock to: (on flickr)

I think the W rack should be in the same category as Coathanger and generic racks as they have the same single lock point and over crowding problems. --Aredhel 20:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"W racks" are basically the same as Camden stands. They have multiple locking locations if you lean bicycles up against each side of the stand, rather than locking a bicycle across the dipped parts of the stand. In my opinion they're stands, not racks, and should be tagged with bicycle_parking=stands. --Gregoryw 00:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I added rack to the list, as well as another type I found called tree. I think w-racks should be included in stands as well, so I added that as an example in the description for stands. --Oddityoverseer (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Multi-level bicycle stands?

Is there any English name or OSM key for bicycle stands like these? --hangy 00:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think two_tier would be a good name. Search for "bicycle parking two-tier" on the Internet and you will find dozens of links. -- Emvee (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I want to map this specific kind of bicycle parking, has they are more and more of them, but i see there is nothing documented in the wiki. I've taken a look in taginfo : [1]
Here are some possibilities found in taginfo to describe this type of bicycle parking :
  • "high_capacity" 45 uses
  • "high_density" 15 uses
  • "two_tier" 4 uses
  • "multi-storey" 3 uses
  • "double_decker" 2 uses
  • "double_rack" 1 use
  • "double_deck" 1 use
I'm not familiar with this kind of equipment and i'm not a native english speaker, instinctively i would use the value "double_rack".
We should discuss this and choose the right term to use, any recommendation?
-- Kazing (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

sheffield stands are stands

I don't understand why we distinguish Sheffield stands and other stands. As I understand it, the only difference is shape. However, differences in shape rarely have a practical effect. Furthermore, the term "Sheffield stands" is only understood in the UK. There are lots of Sheffield-shaped stands in Germany that are just tagged as stands because the German users don't know about the term "Sheffield stands", or don't know the difference.

I think we should deprecate the bicycle_parking=sheffield tag, and just use bicycle_parking=stands for any parking under these circumstances:

  • you can lean your bike against the stand.
  • you can decide whether to lock your frame, one of your wheels, or your frame and a wheel. --Head 12:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • if you have two locks, you can lock both your front wheel and your back wheel to the stand. criterium added --Head 17:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
+1 --KTim 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
+1 More a cultural/language distinction than a technical one. If we distinguished sheffiled, we'd have to distinguish 100 others. --Vincent De Phily 16:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Wall" loops and "ground" slots

While we're revisiting the terminology, perhaps we should reword wall_loops and ground_slots too. Neither is necessarily set in the ground or mounted on a wall, and the current photo for the former is contradictory. Perhaps "wheel_loops" and "wheel_slots" would be better, as both are intended to receive cycle wheels. --achadwick 18:05, 5 June 2012 (BST)

+1 --Oddityoverseer (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I changed it to wall_hoops because regarding to Potlatch2 this tag does exist (but wall_loops does not) --Simon.schlaepfer (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Tags exist, when they exist in the database, regardless of the presets available in some editors. Usage is what counts. wall_loops is used 2202 times, wall_hoops just 153 times. Alv (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

W rack / wave / ribbon / wave / serpentine as own value?

It was already shortly discussed intermixed in the previous section bicycle_parking=rack?. What about "w racks"? Should they have an own value (follow-up question: which value) or be just treated and tagged as "stands"?

A suggested new addition to the value table (triggered by Stevevance's addition). I have reverted this addition now after seeing that this was discussed before (where apparently conclusion was to not give it an own value and to instead add "w racks" as sub-type to "stands"). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From the description of "stands" it seems that they differ mainly by "lean your entire bicycle" which, I assume, is the intended use of those stands. Whereas the "w racks" are intended to be used perpendicular to the bike's frame. And, of course, "w racks" are more long. So, I agree to add it as own type (which is why I extended the description a bit). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you add my description (full or partial) to the "stand" description, and the photo, to demonstrate very clearly that "stands" should be used for wave racks? (comment by Stevevance)
Sure - if it really should not be an own type. I think we should wait a bit for other people's comments (that was my intention posting this here). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think there should definitely be a separate value for "w/wave" racks, because they are very different in use than stands, and not exactly the same as "coathanger" racks either. Stands imply putting the bike side-on, one on each side. Most W racks I've seen have more than two waves, implying that each bike goes in an up or down wave, supported by only one point. Pkoby (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see W racks have their own value, because unlike the other types, the capacity of a W rack is ambiguous. I have seen discussion in the US (sorry, the links escape me at the moment) indicating that the capacity is equal to the number of verticals in the rack, but from experience I think this is a theoretical maximum and quite a bit higher than actually achievable in most settings. One bike anchored in the same plane as the pipe greatly reduces capacity, and many W racks are placed too close to walls or planters to allow parking from both sides of the rack. A more objective measure for these would be to record the number of humps. --EdH 4:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you really want to make the capacity of W racks obscure to data consumers (unless they specifically recognize this type)? I think a (maybe) practical capacity should still be given. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Vertical parking

I'm seeing more vertical bike parking, which seems distinct from the other styles listed here. If anything it's kind of like a bike tree, but along a wall. Ideas about a new value, or just go with bike tree? Neuhausr (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


Surface marked on the ground

What about the surface marked on the ground where you are supposed to park your bicycle without any security ? https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.01181426267854&lng=4.481249231864041&z=17&menu=false&pKey=BKisn6q2dy-YbWaCGeswIw&focus=photo

I added bicycle_parking=floor for that, see below. Clear example, by the way. --IByte (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Streetpod a product name?

I'm investigating what a streetpod is working on the Danish translation of OsmAnd POI.

I'm not a native English speaker and haven't heard the term before but to me and based on the searching I've done it seems like streetpod is a specific product from company Cyclepods (1, 2). They apparently got a special approval by UK police but does that warrant a dedicated OSM tag?

Shouldn't OSM use a generic term for this kind of parking system? Being its distinguishing feature is a stand with a built in lock, maybe something like wheel_lock or lock_device.

miki (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Verona Rack?

Looking at bicycle_parking values in tag info, I see "Verona_rack" is used somewhat frequently (~175 times as of today). I didn't find much via search engine but by cross-referencing an Overpass query with Google StreetView it appears this rack with a longer arm and shorter arm may be what is meant: Via G Leopardy, Milan Neuhausr (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if bicycle_parking=building makes sense

I am not sure if bicycle_parking=building makes a lot of sense, within the list of values that we have. Maybe it would be better to tag additionally with building=yes (and I see a note to that effect was actually added to that page a few months ago) or covered=yes and use the value of bicycle_parking=* to indicate the type of bicycle receptacle that's actually inside the building (unless the inside really just is a flat empty floor, for which you could add a new value, e.g. bicycle_parking=floor. I'd suggest adding that anyway, as even some outdoor bicycle parking lots are nothing more than a marked rectangle of pavement). bicycle_parking=building is in use, though, according to Taginfo. --IByte (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the building value doesn't make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, building=yes only works if the building contains nothing but the bicycle parking. As soon as you have cases of multi-use buildings, you can't use a building=* tag on the bicycle parking any more (as that would produce a small building inside the larger one). So the best solution would probably be to invent a new tag. Also agree on the floor value, by the way. --Tordanik 21:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, what I could do is add the building=yes tag as an alternative option to the description of bicycle_parking=building (so, "Alternatively, you could use..." etc.), and leave it up to the judgement of the mapper whether it is possible or sensible to use it. I'm not sure what new tag would have to be invented; do you have suggestions? I think I'll add the bicycle_parking=floor option to the table soon. It would be nice to have an example photo for it. --IByte (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I added a definition for bicycle_parking=floor to the table (with photo) --IByte (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I added a note about the alternative tagging to shed and building. --IByte (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)