Talk:Key:bicycle parking

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)
I agree. There is definitely a distinction that should be made here. --Oddityoverseer (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (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?

Multi-level bicycle parking

Is there any English name or OSM key for bicycle stands like these? --hangy 00:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think two_tier would be a good name. Search for "bicycle parking two-tier" on the Internet and you will find dozens of links. -- Emvee (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I want to map this specific kind of bicycle parking, has they are more and more of them, but i see there is nothing documented in the wiki. I've taken a look in taginfo : [1]
Here are some possibilities found in taginfo to describe this type of bicycle parking :
  • "high_capacity" 45 uses
  • "high_density" 15 uses
  • "two_tier" 4 uses
  • "multi-storey" 3 uses
  • "double_decker" 2 uses
  • "double_rack" 1 use
  • "double_deck" 1 use
I'm not familiar with this kind of equipment and i'm not a native english speaker, instinctively i would use the value "double_rack".
We should discuss this and choose the right term to use, any recommendation?
-- Kazing (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
So high_capacity is a popular choice. That feels rather non-specific as a type. I suppose various very different types of design might be described as "high capacity". Wonder if anyone mapped this thing in Japan. Now that's high density :-) ... or maybe it is the best option. Not sure. I only know of one bike park like this in London. here. Currently no tag chosen. -- Harry Wood (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)\

We call these bicycle parking racks "Dubbellaags fietsparkeersystemen" in Dutch, which translates to Double layer bicycle parking. Otherwise also called double stacked bike rack. See on this website about a double stacked bike rack.

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)
Tags exist, when they exist in the database, regardless of the presets available in some editors. Usage is what counts. wall_loops is used 2202 times, wall_hoops just 153 times. Alv (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved: deprecating tags can be done, but it would need broader consensus and this tags are really widely used Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2022 (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)
Sure - if it really should not be an own type. I think we should wait a bit for other people's comments (that was my intention posting this here). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think there should definitely be a separate value for "w/wave" racks, because they are very different in use than stands, and not exactly the same as "coathanger" racks either. Stands imply putting the bike side-on, one on each side. Most W racks I've seen have more than two waves, implying that each bike goes in an up or down wave, supported by only one point. Pkoby (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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)
This value really should be not used and stands / racks/ wall_loops be used instead. And for tagging capacity we have already capacity=* Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Vertical parking

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)

Surface marked on the ground

What about the surface marked on the ground where you are supposed to park your bicycle without any security ?

I added bicycle_parking=floor for that, see below. Clear example, by the way. --IByte (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Streetpod a product name?

I'm investigating what a streetpod is working on the Danish translation of OsmAnd POI.

I'm not a native English speaker and haven't heard the term before but to me and based on the searching I've done it seems like streetpod is a specific product from company Cyclepods (1, 2). They apparently got a special approval by UK police but does that warrant a dedicated OSM tag?

Shouldn't OSM use a generic term for this kind of parking system? Being its distinguishing feature is a stand with a built in lock, maybe something like wheel_lock or lock_device.

miki (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Afaik Streetpod does not include built-in lock. I agree that brand shouldn't be used (see Locky Dock section below) even though "streetpod" seems to have an option in iD editor already... EliotB (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Verona Rack?

Looking at bicycle_parking values in tag info, I see "Verona_rack" is used somewhat frequently (~175 times as of today). I didn't find much via search engine but by cross-referencing an Overpass query with Google StreetView it appears this rack with a longer arm and shorter arm may be what is meant: Via G Leopardy, Milan Neuhausr (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if bicycle_parking=building makes sense

I am not sure if bicycle_parking=building makes a lot of sense, within the list of values that we have. Maybe it would be better to tag additionally with building=yes (and I see a note to that effect was actually added to that page a few months ago) or covered=yes and use the value of bicycle_parking=* to indicate the type of bicycle receptacle that's actually inside the building (unless the inside really just is a flat empty floor, for which you could add a new value, e.g. bicycle_parking=floor. I'd suggest adding that anyway, as even some outdoor bicycle parking lots are nothing more than a marked rectangle of pavement). bicycle_parking=building is in use, though, according to Taginfo. --IByte (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the building value doesn't make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, building=yes only works if the building contains nothing but the bicycle parking. As soon as you have cases of multi-use buildings, you can't use a building=* tag on the bicycle parking any more (as that would produce a small building inside the larger one). So the best solution would probably be to invent a new tag. Also agree on the floor value, by the way. --Tordanik 21:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, what I could do is add the building=yes tag as an alternative option to the description of bicycle_parking=building (so, "Alternatively, you could use..." etc.), and leave it up to the judgement of the mapper whether it is possible or sensible to use it. I'm not sure what new tag would have to be invented; do you have suggestions? I think I'll add the bicycle_parking=floor option to the table soon. It would be nice to have an example photo for it. --IByte (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I added a definition for bicycle_parking=floor to the table (with photo) --IByte (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I added a note about the alternative tagging to shed and building. --IByte (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
"floor" is a bad value and should be changed to bicycle_parking=surface (to match other parking types). Please see my comment in the section below. --Javbw (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hoop on a post

Hoop on a post

What's the tag for a hoop half way up a post like this? There's a company, and product, called cyclehoop, which may or may not be the people supplying this one in islington. It looks a lot like the photo for the 'bollard' one, but of course it's not a bollard. It's something added to an existing post for a sign. -- Harry Wood (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Answering my own question, bicycle_parking=post_hoop has 82 uses in the UK. Actually the 8th most popular value in the UK. And seems sensible. Do we get them elsewhere in the world? -- Harry Wood (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have seen these in the US. So, are you saying the bicycle_parking=bollards entry has an incorrect photo? Or rather just defining another, similar, type? -- Neuhausr (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Defining another, similar, type. I think I would suggest it should be added to the values list. These are very common in London.
When I say "of course it's not a bollard", I mean my photo here is not a bollard. I wish my photo was a tiny bit taller now to show that better. The hoop is attached to tall post, which has a sign (or something) on it higher up, that being the primary purpose of the post. The hoop is added as a bonus for cyclists.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

is anchors type real?

During there was problem to find even single case of this bicycle parking type. Can somebody provide example image of such object? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to know also what is an anchor, ones in Paris are mistagged and should be stands. --Florimondable (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I looked to try and find an example in London with Mapillary coverage, but this one just looks like a bicyle_parking=stands to me. Or even clearer here. What does this tag mean?? -- Harry Wood (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

bus shelter attachment points

Some bus shelters used by Denver-area RTD have attachment handles, at each end in the rear, that can be used for at least one bike, maybe a couple with cables. See Mapillary example at Hwy 119 (Diagonal) and Niwot Road, Niwot, Colorado, USA. DougGrinbergs (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Event bike racks

Should bike racks like these, where the bike is hanged by the saddle, be simply tagged with bicycle_parking=rack, or would it be better to give them their own designation? -- Jeandeaual 04:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Helix/coil/spiral bike racks

How should a helix bike rack be categorized? It's a rack but functions more like stands. --Andrew (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I encountered and tagged such parkings as bicycle_parking=stands Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it an anchor?


This image was proposed to be bicycle_parking=anchors in For me it looks more like unusually attached bicycle_parking=stands. Earlier and was shown to me as an example of this tag. Note that huge majority (95%+ percent of bicycle_parking=anchors in the database) turns out to be incorrect on a resurvey Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I suspect these images can be used. E.g. license issues permitting: (Such bicycle wall anchors may be more relevant for private parking than public ones. Possibly you would need to make the screws tamper-proof somehow.) MortenLange (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Locky dock

There are a number of these LockyDocks in my city.

Locky dock bicycle stand with bicycles

They provide parking with integral locking and an outlet for charging. They are locked/unlocked using an app or bus card. Here they are sponsored, so usage costs nothing.

I believe (from the FAQ) that these originate in Northern Europe , so maybe there are existing examples. Apparently made by Bikeep

My current stab at tagging is:


@EliotB: big problem here is that Locky Dock is brand, so bicycle_parking=locky_dock is not reusable. BTW, name=Locky Dock should be brand=Locky Dock Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Change brand, change type to "locking_stand" - distinctive feature is that lock is part of the stand. Note: "Streetpod" mentioned in a section above is also a brand, so "big problem"?

Wave Type Bike Rack

I haven't gone into the weeds maybe as much as I should have, but I think that bicycle_parking=wave should not be deprecated. When I speak of a wave rack, I am referring to the following as the archetype of wave racks:

Serpentine Bike Rack Powder-Coat.png

I referencing this article for the following interpretation. I think the differentiation in use by bicyclists gives merit to distinguishing stands that allow the following:

  • Supports the bicycle in at least two places
  • Allows the bicycle to be secured with a U-lock at the frame and at least one or both wheels are securely anchored to the ground
  • Resists cutting, rusting, and bending

from stands that do not have those characteristics. Some stands that do have those characteristics are known as the inverted U, staple racks, Sheffield stands, post and ring rack. The inverted U, staple rack and Sheffield stand are all different names for same kind of rack. The inverted U, staple rack and Sheffield stand are currently tagged via bicycle_parking=stands. From the example images, the post and ring rack is covered by bicycle_parking=stands if it's large enough to lean a whole bike against (which I don't understand, I am a visual learner, if someone could illustrate what "sufficiently big" means, that would be helpful), otherwise it should be tagged as bicycle_parking=bollard.

Most of the stands in my area are wave-type, and as a bicyclist, it is very frustrating to use compared to the inverted U rack. One of the properties on this page used to describe a wave rack is:
> A single metal tube bent into multiple "loops", to which multiple bikes can be locked at a single point, perpendicular to the stand.
This is not worded that well, as it matters that the bike is locked "perpindicular to the [longest direction of the] stand" for a wave-type rack. This encompasses the two example pictures used in the table for bicycle_parking=wave but the pictures describe more custom, and likely, less common kinds of racks, that are technically a single metal tube (arguable for the first picture) that allow the bike to be locked up at one point, but lock up the bike in a functionally different manner.

The first of the two pictures used for the wave-type frankly does not resemble what a wave-rack typically looks like, and was even described by the uploader as
> Lager Rings to lock a bicycle at
which does not equate to a wave type of rack. The rack even seems to allow the bike to be locked up at two points in a direction not perpindcular to the longest direction of the stand, which means it is not even an example of a wave type rack.

The second picture also does not resemble the 'archetype' of a wave rack, and is described as:
> Bicycle Parking Rings
which again, while not proof in its own right, does not equate to a wave type of rack. In addition, the 'archetypal' rack allows for the bike to be attached by the frame perpendicular to the rack. This rack only allows for the wheel to be locked to the rack. Again, another functionally significant difference between the two racks. The "lager rings" rack and the "bicycle parking rings" rack are below, respectively.


While I do not have numbers that back up my feeling that lager ring type and bicycle parking ring type racks and stands are less common than the wave type rack, I do believe that that the tagging recommendations should be modified to allow for the necessary description to differentiate between other kinds of racks and wave type racks. It feels slightly non-sensical to write such a long argument for not deprecating bicycle_parking=wave, but I feel like an argument needed to be made in order to flesh out its importance and difference from other kinds of bicycle parking stands. IanVG (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@IanVG: so for you example of bicycle_parking=wall_loops (wheelbender), right? And you want to tag as bicycle_parking=wave? Would you be fine also with bicycle_parking=stands (as you can lean bike frame on it) + stands=wave? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
You may not have numbers, but you have my anecdotal experience—I've never seen one of the other types in my entire life. Coming from a non-cyclist perspective, I would much rather use bicycle_parking=wave. I know nothing about if you can lean a bike against it, or what other rack style tag it's closest to (discussion here says stands, image footnote on the page says wall loops). Simply calling it a wave would be the easiest way to add this information.

When I picture a wave-type bike rack it's pretty much always something that looks like the photo IanVG shows. It's a distinct type of bicycle parking that can't be used the same way as actual standalone bike stands and is unfortunately still fairly common around where I live although it's mostly fallen out of favor. I wouldn't really consider it a type of stand, and also don't think it should be depreciated.--Oba510 (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

bicycle_parking=floor is a bad value, and should be bicycle_parking=surface to match car & motorcycle parking.

To have bicycle parking use a unique value compared to all other parking types in OSM is bad idea. As with other parking lots, "surface" is commonly used for a flat parking area, so "floor" should be discouraged and batch-removed from OSM.

Also, the value "floor" is a non-intuitive value - is it inside? is it part of a building? "Floor" is a bad value on it's own.

Note/background: I am from San Diego, CA, and almost all bike parking there uses a rack or post of some kind. I can not remember seeing any "floor/surface" bicycle parking. But now living in Japan, the situation is very different. I usually map in Japan, and a vast majority of bicycle parking outside of major urban centers are almost exclusively "surface" - marked flat ground only. this represents possibly over a million "surface" bicycle parking spots. While urban centers have paid rack parking - most malls, shops, small train stations, public buildings, parks, and other places where consideration is given to bike parking are marked by painting a square next to a wall or a signed separate barrier-enclosed area (hedges, kerbs, fences, etc). in Japan, almost all urban bikes have kickstands and ring locks, - racks are usually for increasing parking density or ensuring payment for parking, not security - so mere surface parking is the cheapest way for locations to offer signed & marked bike parking, so it is very common. --Javbw (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

bicycle_parking=* itself, mostly used for the parking mount, is inconsistent with parking=* , for the location. You can't indicate what's inside a bicycle_parking=building or bicycle_parking=shed , and nothing for underground or other indoor situation (is it a "building"? Dedicated or shared?).
I imagine it is better to promote amenity=bicycle_parking + parking=* + bicycle_parking=*, similar to amenity=motorcycle_parking . There are implications for scooters and mopeds around Proposal:Amenity=small_vehicle_parking#Current_Situation (which I don't like). —— Kovposch (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Frame hanger thingy

How would a frame hanger be mapped?

Is it matching handlebar_holder value? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)