Talk:Key:motorcycle friendly

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This key is horribly vague. How can I tell if something is "motorcycle friendly"? What are the signs? What does exactly mean "friendly", and I mean specifics? How can I tell the difference between any accommodation on the planet and motorcycle friendly accommodations? Doe this key fit for other usages than accommodation, and if yes, how to tell? How to verify on ground or else?

Are there country specific memberships, or service marks, or whatever?

Thanks! --grin 08:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a new proposal .. Your comments might be best made there as that may replace this tag. There is also discussion on the tagging list. Warin61 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

O.k., we could certainly use more parameters, but which ones ? The "usual" ones (in Germany) also just got three categories :

The German automobile club has the following criteria :

  • (Theft) safe and secure motorcycle parking areas.
  • Facilities for wet clothes.
  • Tools for minor repairs
  • Extensive information material (including tour suggestions, excursion tips, road maps, useful addresses for motorcyclists)

We could certainly use this criteria for "yes", others are then "customary".

There are discussions about hotel stars and also about the (offroad) street surface, the latter is similar difficult as everyone will have another impression.

This is why I kept it simple.

Suggestions welcome rtfm 12:52, 14 February 2017

This is far too vague. For example, to be considered "motorcycle-friendly" in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States, a campground would need bear-proof food storage facilities -- something that would be entirely unnecessary on the Great Plains. --Carnildo (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

but this applies to hikers as well. If you know that a place is not suitable for motorcyclist because there are no bear-proof food storage facilities (can't you bring them yourself?), you won't apply the tag, or would apply it with a "no" value, but pecularities like this are not something that can be catered for specifically in a general definition with a worldwide scope. I think the definition should be fairly general but would if well written be useful for your judgement also in cases like your Rocky Mountain bears example. Human judgement is needed for any of the OSM tags anyway. For these bear safe facilities I would suggest to use a specific tag like bear-proof_food_storage=yes. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Way too vague as others have said. As a motorcycle rider I'd rather know where parking spots that are reserved ONLY for motorcycles. This seems a little subjective as someone could say the owner of the establishment hates motorcycles, but there's still vehicle parking. Tagging a parking with access=no and then motorcycle=yes James2432 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
For dedicated motorcycle parking there is Tag:amenity=motorcycle_parking --Dieterdreist (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If there's already Tag:amenity=motorcycle_parking what's the point of having this at all? If it has to do with bear proof food storage, then you should be tagging the food storage, not motorcycle. People won't associate motorcycle friendly with bear proof food storages. James2432 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of this page

I hereby propose to delete this page or move it to the namespace of User:Rtfm. See my posting on the Tagging mailing list for more information. --Nakaner (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This has never passed in vote and the page status was changed to "in use" instead of proposal. This tag is horribly drawn up and incredibly vague. Food storage with motorcycles is not the first thing that comes to mind, unless you live in Alaska, which I think the user is trying to use this tag for --James2432 (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
+1 --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
James2432, did you at least read the page description ? There's no "food storage" mentioned.
As already mentioned above, suggestions are welcome, whereas "incredibly vague"
is an incredibly vague and narrow minded criticism.
Nakaner should at least list aspects here why he thinks a deletion is necessary. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)