Talk:Key:bicycle:type

Verifiability of this key on bicycle routes

The type of bicycle or type of bike riding associated with a route is not an objective, verifiable characteristic. It is possible to ride a single-speed, balloon-tire "beach cruiser" on a trekking route, utility route, or road_cycling route, if the rider has strong joints and muscles. Even most mountain bike routes can be used on other types of bikes if the rider is skilled.

To make it possible for mappers to confirm if this tag is correct or not, the definition would need to be changed to say that there must be an official sign or marker which shows what type of bicycle or what type of riding is designated for the route. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

We already had this discussion in the tagging mailing list [1]

bicycle:type=* for a cycle route relation describe the usage of the route not the bike, road cycling is an activity not a type of bicycle.

And yet again, as you don't need a signage to have a route, you don't need a signage to know its main usage. And of course this tag is not mandatory.

By the way this tag has been already used by others to describe other features than cycle route, so please don't limit the tagging page for only cycle routes.

--Florimondable (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the mailing list was opposed to using this tag to subjectively classify bicycle routes, if there is no specific signage.

The description of route=bicycle is "Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise signed routes..." - if there is no physical signage or marking of the route, it is not appropriate to be mapped in Openstreetmap. --Jeisenbe (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This is boring,

1. You removed twice the "Bicycle Route" section I wrote, I wrote this section just to document the tag, I already explained that bicycle:type is for cycling usage type when used with cycle route.

Of course for shop it seems that it's not the usage that has been tagged, but the object : the type of the bicycle. So different values, different table, hence the section. But I didn't write anything for shop (or other features) because I don't write others tag documentation that I never used.

2. Discussions cannot be opposed, it's not a person, and nobody in the list did a sum up and nobody has the authority for that. I read it back I see some persons with interest with the idea, I explained how it's possible to see the cycling type of a cycle route. I'm sorry I not here to have wiki administration war harassment, I'm not here to teach you how to see things, like we say in French « il n'y a pas plus aveugle que celui qui ne veut pas voir ». Have you tried to use the tag ? Did you already had an edit war with someone about its values ? I guess not.

3. My point of view (like already said) is that wiki definition cycle route is against wiki route definition, so the cycle route definition is wrong, and against the tagging freedom, on the ground and local knowledge OSM principles.

4. If you need a signage to believe in cycle route sub type why don't you try to find it yourself ? I found some.

--Florimondable (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: 3. The page Key:route says "For instance route=foot; route=bicycle or route=horse may be used on relations relation (for signedposted routes), but should not be used on ways." - so it is mentioned at that page that route=bicycle is for signposted routes. There is no contradiction with the definition on Tag:route=bicycle. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Jeisenbe, can you prove that it's not and will never be possible to distinguish the main cycling usage of at least one cycling route in the world ? If not, can you remove the "verifiability disputed" banner you added ?--Florimondable (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not what "verifiable" means. For a tag to be verifiable, it has to be possible for a mapper to confirm the existence of the feature when visiting the place in person the majority of the time. But I'm willing to remove the warning box and just leave the caution about bicycle routes, since I agree that some bicycle shops only sell mountain bikes or only track racing bikes, for example. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

My point is: to say that a key is not verifiable you must prove that its values cannot be distinguished every where every time.

If the feature exist then you can map it, if not don’t. Its the same with bicycle:type if the route is a road cycling route then tag it, if not don’t. It’s exactly the same with route=mtb, and nobody have issue with it. bicycle:type key just extends the principle of route=mtb to other cycling activities.--Florimondable (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, the definition of a tag needs to be verifiable whenever the tag is used, otherwise how will the next mapper know if the tag is being used correctly or not? As I said above, "To make it possible for mappers to confirm if this tag is correct or not, the definition would need to be changed to say that there must be an official sign or marker which shows what type of bicycle or what type of riding is designated for the route." This will also be consistent with the definition of route=mtb which has been mentioned: "MTB (Mountain Bike) routes are named, numbered or otherwise signed routes, designated for mountain biking". That makes it clear that there has to be a sign of some kind which shows that it is a route designated for mountain bikes. --Jeisenbe (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again, "official sign", do we need a sign to tag a building ?

Do we need a sign to tag a highway ?

Do we need a sign to tag a name ?

Do we need a sign to tag a natural feature ?

Do we need a sign to tag a surface ?

Do we need a sign to tag a landuse ?

Do we need a sign to tag a power ?

Do we need a sign to tag a waterway ?

Do we need a sign to tag an amenity ?

Shall I continue every next most used tags ?

This is OpenStreetMap not OfficialSignMap

--Florimondable (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't need a sign to tag a highway, waterway, or natural feature, because these are real things which you can see in person (or on aerial imagery even). You do need a sign to tag a ref=* number for a highway or path, or to map a route=road with ref=*, and in most countries you look at the signs to determine if a road is a highway=primary or highway=secondary. --Jeisenbe (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Well no, a sign is not mandatory for a ref. A bicycle:type route is a real thing you can see. If you can’t see it, don’t tag it. You don’t see what kind of road is it, use highway=road, you can distinguish it then tag it, same thing here.--Florimondable (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this tag is only (or mainly) used for what the wiki says it's used for in one place in the world and your the main tagger of it. Outside of that, it's randomly sprinkled around on bike shops to tag what kinds of bikes they sell. Given that, I think this should either be turned into a proposal, or maybe not suggested/documented at all. Or if nothing else it should be mentioned in the article that's mainly only used for what the article says it's being used for in one place in the world and doesn't represent "normal" tagging practices. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read Any tags you like «You can use any tags you like, but please document them here on the OpenStreetMap wiki» I'm just applying one of the basic rule of OSM, and no I don't need to ask permission for doing so. --Florimondable (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why your being defensive about it. The Wiki is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and I was merely describing how the tag is being used. I could really care less what tags you use. Any tags you like doesn't give everyone carte blanche to use whatever random word combinations they want to create a bunch of tags and then to subsequently create a bunch of junk articles prescribing the usage of said 2 or 3 usage tags though. Not that I'm saying your doing that, but obviously there's a middle ground and context matters as to where the difference is between someone using a tag on their own in their neighborhood for particular situation because it works there and them recommending everyone else in the world use it. Usually the first doesn't involve (or need to involve) community buy in and feedback. The second does though. You've chosen to go with the second. So save the bad attitude about the feedback. Otherwise, feel free to go back to using the tag in your little area and don't participate in community forums anymore. I could really care less. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

May be you're offensive against it ? The first version I wrote was light and descriptive I think https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:bicycle:type&oldid=1963882.

I didn't choose the second ! I use a tag, I document it, people are free to use it or not, if people use it it's great it means it's usefull, if not who care ? What I see here it's gate keeping against tag innovation.--Florimondable (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, "logistics" being a type of bicycle is just nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you heard of cargo bike, and other kind of bicycle for logistics ?... This is a good example of gate keeping against tag innovation.--Florimondable (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have. A bike with a basket on the back is not a type of bike. It's just a bike with a basket. Anymore then a truck is suddenly a mobile home or RV solely because someone modifies it by adding a camper shell on the back so they can sleep in the truck bed once in awhile. As far as me somehow gate keeping against tag "innovation" (whatever nonsense that means) simply for having an opinion, all I'm going to say is that it's a pretty juvenile, useless and condensing way to make a counter argument. Assuming good faith is a thing on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW, the general opinion of people on here has been that any kind of whatever:type tags are intrinsically bad because the word "type" is nonsensical, doesn't actually add anything meaningful that isn't already or couldn't be covered better by more specific tags, and most of the discussions surrounding whatever:type tags devolving into the same sort of spoiled, knee jerk, demagoguery and Strawmaning that your using. We could bicker back and forth about what a bike "type" is endlessly, maybe you'd enjoy that because childish bickering and insulting other users to get your way is just how you role, but I have better things to do. So unless you have something actually constructive to add, I don't really give two craps what your opinion is about it. Really, I don't anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Make the :type suffix more accurate

Like many other keys, this one involves the :type suffix and it's not accurate. What word would best define what it's all about here? Type is too obvious to be relevant. Is that about bike capabilities, usage, anything else? Fanfouer (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

While I agree in general that 'type' is not a usefull description, unfortunately this is in general use - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bicycle_types I also have not found a suitable alternative. Warin61 (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This is only the language describing the syntax. Eg bicycle_rental=* would show the "type" of "bicycle rental", not going to use bicycle_rental:type=*. The only purpose of bicycle:type=* would be to lazily avoid conflicting with bicycle=*. ---- Kovposch (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking for the good in the bad, the unverifiable class:bicycle=* chose to directly add class:bicycle:bike. Aside from electric_bicycle=*, there's cargo_bike=* for access:*=*. ---- Kovposch (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Electric bicycles have types too.

Electric bicycles are also available in different types. Possibly a better tag for these is bicycle_electric:type=bmx;cargo;tandem;touring;road;mtb;gravel;* ? Warin61 (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)