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.
- 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)
- 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?
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)
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)
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)
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)