Proposal talk:Motorcycle friendly/tag description

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)
I thing that keeping it in Proposed features namespace, with description why this tag is a horrible idea and should not be used is a good idea. Especially as Rtfm keeps recreating this page (without mentioning any issues of this tag). It should not be placed in Rtfm namespace - that would allow him/her to remove evidence of attempted manipulation and usage of multiple accounts to push this malformed tag Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Mateusz. --Nakaner (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

page locked

There appears to be an edit war on this page. I have now locked this page against changes for 3 months; please use this time to discuss the topics that you are disagreeing about on the discussion page. --Lyx (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I created a section below Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
RTFM - please note this section, please answer with your viewpoint rather than retry futile blanking Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I looked the page for another year, as edit wars had resumed in the meantime. That gives everyone involved another chance to learn how to discuss issues instead of trying to silence the other side. --Lyx (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Documentation of vote manipulation

I see no reason to make edits like that remove documentation that voting is manipulated. This documentation is useful as it prevents people from being mislead by a fake support in voting Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please define "fake support". This were no "socket puppets". Is there a rule how many edits someone must have done before being able to vote ? (btw. I consider the voting system not as democratic as it requires a minimum of IT knowledge as of the handling) rtfm Rtfm (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
"fake support" - everything indicates that accounts used for vote were created and operated by you. Maybe you found some people and you told them what they should do, but they had no real opinion about this topic and you were in such case indirectly operating their accounts. Everything indicates that the accounts were not operated by 13 separate members of OSM community (active mappers) but by a single one. In theory it is possible 12 community members noticed vote, all of them created account, voted on obviously flawed proposal that is generally considered as an extremely bad idea and then disappeared. But it is far more likely that you attempted to created fake support and failed to create a convincing fake support Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning that I went through a lot of the voters a while back to see if any of them had corresponding OSM accounts, because I wanted to give RTFM the benefit of the doubt that they were real users, and none of the ones I checked had accounts on the main site. Which is extremely suspicious. A few important points that I'd love to see RTFM dispute or explain are
1. It's doubtful that if they were all legitimate OSM editors that they would all create Wiki accounts under different names then their main ones. Which is the only explanation there is for why there are no accounts on the main site connected to these users.
2. It's also doubtful that if they were actual users, who had zero edits up until they voted, that they would have even known about the proposal or been able to vote on it (remember, it takes "IT knowledge" that according to RTFM most people don't have). Ultimately, there's zero way they would have known about the proposal or been able to vote on it without being active in other places or having prior editing experience (which they aren't and clearly don't have).
3. People with zero wiki edits and no OSM accounts/edits would have zero reason to vote on this or any other proposal. Unless they were friends of the proposals creator and were talked into it (or they just didn't exist and were fake votes).
4. The argument can't be made that voting is bunk because it takes special knowledge most people don't have, while also arguing that people with zero prior experience editing a wiki and voting can do it. Both things can't be true. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Additional statement due to repeated threats of legal action from RTFM: Obviously, I cannot be 100% certain (I am not an omniscient God). But I believe that available information is sufficient to describe RTFM as account operated by the same person who very likely operated fake accounts used to distort outcome of this voting. Evidence is including editing history of this accounts (none), lack of matching OSM mappers, lack of support for this tag from participant in discussions, lack of support for this type of this tags from other mappers, behavior history of RTFM etc. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)