Proposed features/bicycle rental:type
|Proposal status:||Approved (active)|
|Definition:||Clarification on amenity=bicycle_rental on what type of bicycle rental it is|
The amenity=bicycle_rental is currently a good start, but makes it hard to distinguish between the various types of bicycle rentals that exist nowadays. It is hard to figure out what kind of bicycle rental one will encounter: e.g. a docking station, a key dispensing machine, a staffed shop...
This proposal aims to create a new tag to clarify these types.
As little extra, we also want to introduce some extra tagging for payment options, authorization, ...
Currently, the official page about amenity=bicycle_rental is very limited. At the same time, there is similar but non-unified tagging for shop=rental and incompatible tagging for some rental types. (e.g. amenity=boat_rental)
The biggest issue is that it is very hard to see what kind of bicycle_rental one can expect: a docking station, a rental shop, ... To solve this, the proposal is to let bicycle_rental=* specify the precise type of the infrastructure, e.g. bicycle_rental=docking_station, bicycle_rental=key_dispensing_machine, .... This is incompatible with previous, informal use of bicycle_rental which use this key to specify the bicycles that can be rented out (e.g. ebike, cargobike, ...) This use is however negligable (~230 entries from 33 users)
These can however be specified with the already established rental=* - which is also compatible with other tagging schemes.
As this is a legacy situation, it is very hard to come up with a unified tagging scheme that is consistent with all of those bigger tagging schemes while keeping the original semantics intact - so this tagging will never (and can never) be perfect.
Tagging the kind of rented bike
While most of the bicycle_rentals rent out normal bikes, some also rent out special types of bike,such as e-bikes, speed-pedelecs, tandems, cargo-bikes.
Tagging the infrastructure
|amenity=bicycle_rental and bicycle_rental=docking_station||A docking station where one can pickup a bike in an automated manner. The bike is physically attached to the docking station with a special system, unlocked either via a nearby machine, an app, an NFC-membership card or some other authorization/payment system.|
|amenity=bicycle_rental and bicycle_rental=dropoff_point||A designated parking spot where bikes of a certain bicycle rental are stored, typically (but not necessarily) within a bigger bike parking. The bicycle rental service must have reserved parking spots, clearly indicated by signposts. A bike can be rented by unlocking the smart lock through an app. There is no special infrastructure.|
|amenity=bicycle_rental and bicycle_rental=key_dispensing_machine||A machine where one can get a key to unlock a bike. The bikes are typically parked nearby, eventually (but not necessarily) in a designated parking.||[]|
|amenity=bicycle_rental and bicycle_rental=shop and shop=bicycle_rental||A staffed, indoor shop whose main business is bike rental, e.g. for tourists in a touristical region. Some bigger hotels and recreation parks have a designated shed with bikes for their visitors. Note that this effectively doubletags this feature - this is necessary to keep backwards compatibility||example to another tagged OSM object.|
When not to use this tag:
- For a rental service which rents out more then just bikes, e.g. if they rent out skeelers, go-carts, wheelchairs, pushchairs, ... too. These should be tagged with shop=rental instead, with rental=* to specify everything they rent out.
- For a bicycle shop which also happens to rent out bikes. These get shop=bicycle + service:bicycle:rental=yes.
- For any feature whose main purpose is not renting out bicycles (or anything else), but if they offer this as an extra service (e.g. a small hotel which rents out a few bikes to their guests). Such a feature can be tagged with service:bicycle:rental=* as well.
Do not add virtual dropoff locations to OpenStreetMap! Some applications have floating bicycles which should be dropped at some fixed location marked in the app, but without special signalisation on the location itself. These should not be mapped, as they are hard to verify, hard to maintain and can change on a whim of the app creator. Furthermore, the app itself already has this data, there is no use duplicating this data. (Note that these apps often point users towards existing bicycle parkings, which can be mapped with amenity=bicycle_parking. If this bicycle parking is nothing more then a painted, designated area, this can be tagged as bicycle_parking=floor.)
Tags to use in combination
- rental=* to specify the bicycle types rented out
- authentication=* to indicate wether and how authentication happens
- payment=* to indicate how payment happens
- access=* if not accessible to the general public (e.g. access=customers)
- network=* if the bicycle rental is part of a bigger network of rental services.
Note: for the bigger networks, one might create a relation stating common payment, auth, charge, ... properties with properties tagged on individual items as exceptions to this.
Affected features: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dbicycle_rental
Please comment on the discussion page.
- I approve this proposal. --Joost schouppe (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --MatthiasMatthias (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Gplv2 (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Emilius123 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --S8evq (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Thierry1030 (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. See the talk page; leaving just a few hours to respond to your was unreasonably short; it should've been discussed more and consensus reached before being put to vote. mnalis (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. ---- Kovposch (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I think it is an advantage to have differentiated guidelines even at the risk that they are overdifferentiated as long as one isn't obliged to use them always. Users of the data can easily decide if they want to group tags like docking_station and dropoff_point if the know that these two possibilities are given and documented. If you don't give this information this could result in future multiple taggings for the same thing without having a base for interpretation of the data. --Segubi (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Two main tags, amenity=bicycle_rental and shop=bicycle_rental, for one element is unnecessary and confusing. Better either amenity=bicycle_rental + bicycle_rental=shop or shop=bicycle_rental. (Sorry that i missed the RFC.) --Dafadllyn (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. As noted on the discussion page, I think the distinctions are unnecessarily overdifferentiated and the properties that matter can be expressed with existent tags (self_service=*, payment=* etc.). though this alone is not a reason to vote against. You also addressed the concern regarding backward compatibility by writing that a shop=bicycle_rental should always be accompanied by amenity=bicycle_rental, which is good. However, now there is the duplication bicycle_rental=shop + shop=bicycle_rental and no reason was given why this would make sense (shop=bicycle_rental is basically unused, so backward compatibility can't be the reason) --Westnordost (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. What is the point of shop=bicycle_rental? (sorry that I missed it during RFC) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I am undecided on this proposal, but I want to commend you for all your hard work on putting the proposal together. --Dr Centerline (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I like the proposal and agree in principle however agree with other comments that there should be no double-up, and instead have bicycle_rental=shop or something similar --Ortho is hot (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Adiatmad (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)v
- I approve this proposal. I agree that there should be more separate tagging from just a staffed rental shop. This will make it easier to distinguish from the two. They are still two very different things. --Aaro Hart (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Fiszi37 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Reino Baptista (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- TsBuskerudbyen (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I agree that shop=bicycle_rental (are there really only 8 uses?) in addition to amenity=bicycle_rental is unnecessary and confusing. But this can be dealt with later. Otherwise I like the proposal. --TZorn (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. although I wouldn't require that MAIN shop activity should be bike rental to tag it with bike_rental=shop. --Rmikke (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I believe we could also use something like bicycle_rental:cargo_bike=1 for indicating that in this bicycle rental there is normally one cargo bike (similar to capacity:disabled=*) --Arc2 (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)