Talk:Tag:amenity=bicycle rental

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Misc

Every train station in Europe has something like a Velostation where you can rent a bike for a fews days, providing an ID card and a fee. --Gummibaerli 10:43, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Every is perhaps over-estimated  :)--PhilippeP 13:20, 19 August 2007 (BST)
My current opinion is that a Velostation should be taggued with shop=bicycle_rental. But a Vélib station is not a shop and could be taggued using amenity key. Maybe we should clarify this on the proposition. What do you think ? --Wawet76 18:21, 21 August 2007 (BST)


Then you have the Vélib'[1] and Co madness, which are decentralized system where you pick a bike for a half an hour or so. But you have to join the system first and need a credit card. --Gummibaerli 10:43, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Adding a tag type=self/... maybe to differenciate ??--PhilippeP 13:20, 19 August 2007 (BST)
Or simply leaving the network argument empty ? --Wawet76 18:21, 21 August 2007 (BST)

I think we would need something like class=free for bicycle rental. In vienna all bikesharing stations are already included to OSM by the bicycle_rental tag, network citybike Vienna. Foreign people would not know that those bikes are free to rent for up to 1 hour time. Or are all amentity=bicycle_rental supposed to be for free (limited time)? While shop=bicycle_rental is used for commercial bike rentals?--Extremecarver 09:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is no rent to pay this is not the tag for you. It is explicitly stated that "bicycle_rental" (as also the tag itself states) needs a rent to be paid. See below: Bad choice of Key. --Dieterdreist 12:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"spaces" vs. "capacity"

IMO, "spaces" should be "capacity", in line with amenity=parking and amenity=bicycle_parking --achadwick 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • So any objections to me doing this? --achadwick 12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Update: well, I've done it. Be bold and all that; let me know if you have any objections. --achadwick 13:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"network" → "operator"?

Is the current page's recommendation of network=* sufficiently different from the established usage of operator=* to warrant a different tag? network=* is currently undefined in this Wiki, however there's an abandoned proposal for network=* with a conflicting meaning. IMO, we should use operator=* for this amenity in place of network=* --achadwick 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The link given by network=* now goes to a proposal with a completely conflicting meaning. Given that the meanings are the sameOkay, maybe not...! --achadwick 17:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC), I've switched the main page to suggesting operator=*, which retains approximately the same meaning. --achadwick 13:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The french mailing list proposed to use both (Network and Operator). For Paris, "network=Vélib'" and "operator=JCDecaux", sticking to the meaning of "network" and "operator". Most important is network of course. It would be nice also to User:Sebek 12 Jun 2009
I restored the original "network" tag as it was the key used during the validation process. Use operator=* only for the operating company, not for a trademark. -- Pieren 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, guys. "validation"=="voting"? I don't have strong beliefs in the validity of voting in the wiki, but I do accept data that people have entered into the map in argument: and [2] looks plausible :) The node-and-area meaning of network=* established right here needs to be written up on its own page, I think: it'll be useful elsewhere. That said, maybe the key should be trade_mark=* or brand=*... :) --achadwick 17:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

specifying the possibility to pay

In the velocity and other community bike rental system, only a limited number of station offer the possibility to pay (credit card usually) - this should be indicated on the station. What could we use? vending=yes or vending=subscription? We may also want to add the type of payment accepted using for example payment:coins=yes and so on... FranCk 11:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, don't use "vending" because this is not about any "sale", it is about "rent". Go for payment=*. --Dieterdreist 12:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Bad choice of Key

In all cases that this is used for "bike-sharing" this is a bad choice for the key for several reasons: first because most bike-sharings are free of cost or offer bikes for a low fee, so "rent" does either not apply to them at all or is missleading (the scope is mostly not making money by offering bikes for "rent" but offering a sustainable means of transport and reduce traffic and parked cars, etc.). These services are also very well known under the term "bike sharing" and putting them under bike rental makes them less easily retrievable in the wiki and leads to wrong intuitive interpretations. I suggest to use amenity=bike_sharing or sth. similar instead. --Dieterdreist 12:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

see also

Vote (moved from main page)

  • I approve this proposal. --orgoz 11:50, 31 August 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. FredB 11:54, 31 August 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. PeterIto 12:20, 31 August 2007 (BST), with observation that bike rental within bike shop is the same problem as car parkings within shopping centre. We need a relationship to associate an amenity with a larger entity but Frederik is leading on that. Also toilet within shopping centre etc.
  • I approve this proposal, with reservations: the tag should cover all types of bike rental. Even if it isn't done explicitly, I'm afraid the name of the tag will make people do it accedently :( --Kleptog 12:13, 31 August 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. with the same reservation as Kleptog, it should be clarified in the description of the tag that it is an automated station and not a shop. --PhilippeP 12:37, 31 August 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. Axel584 12:59, 31 August 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. TomChance 14:29, 31 August 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. --David.earl 15:39, 31 August 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. --Hleroy 17:04, 31 August 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. --Alban 18:43, 31 August 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. --Andrewpmk 01:58, 1 September 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. --Metehyi 14:02, 1 September 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. --MikeCollinson 15:37, 2 September 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. --Gregoryw 18:20, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. --Ryra6453 12:17, 4 September 2007 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal. -- motp 23:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Similar to bike rental or sharing but restricted to registered volunteers : Cycling Without Age

There is a growing "movement" that offers residents on elderly people's homes trips in rickshaws. It is called Cycling Without Age, and has spread to more than 20 nations. Would it make sense to map them on OpenStreetMap ? Currently the system uses a Google Map overlay (I think). See the (somewhat outdated) map on the front page of cyclingwithoutage.org Could one use a tag of service:bicycle:rental and attach it to the POI of the elderly people's home ? Other suggestions ? MortenLange (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Mapping as a (linear) way?

It looks like mapping bike share stations as a way is deprecated, both on this page and in the JOSM validator. This seems a bit silly to me though since many bike share stations are long straight rows of docks. I've seen some that were probably about 20-30m long and only as wide as a bicycle. Is there a reason for this restriction? If I map a large station as a polygon, it will still essentially be a linear feature. Nate Wessel (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason, other than someone in the past couldn't imagine it being meaningful. I fully agree now that it is meaningful, for the reason you give: many TfL cycle hire stands are many tens of metres long, and in OSM pretty good to be mapped as lines. I've done TfL stations as linear ways plenty, for this reason. How do we un-"deprecate" it? I've never really noticed it being suppressed.--Danstowell (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
it is not a given that a bike sharing station will put all bikes in one long row (although I have seen these as well). I would suggest you use the area, as it is more explicit about the extent. I do not have a very strong opinion in this case and agree, a linear way could be an appropriate representation as well. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Area is much easier to process. For example, it is extremely useful in deciding whatever icon should be displayed and its priority. And for me the most important part is that in reality it is an area, not a way. Nodes makes sense as are much easier to map, but difficulty in mapping area and line is very similar, while area data is much more useful. For examples see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/677266656#map=19/50.07839/19.96038 (amenity=bicycle_parking case) or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/655025821#map=19/50.05589/19.92761 (amenity=bicycle_rental case). Note how map display ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.07829&mlon=19.96002#map=19/50.07829/19.96002&layers=N ) works well at z18 and z19. It would be unfeasible with line - tweaking it to fit this specific example would not work well for the same object in a different location. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but the question was for linear ways as opposed to areas. The length of the ways could be taken into account in rendering (although it is not currently done AFAIK). Generally I would also prefer the area because it is much better supported and doesn't require special treatment compared to other POIs. --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Nothing is strictly a line (or a point) when you get right down to it though. The question is how the feature is best represented in a simplified form. I say line is most appropriate because what's being mapped is often 1 foot wide by thirty feet or more long, assuming you don't count the bikes themselves which are transient. Lines also have two sides, just like bike share stations can dock bikes on either one or two sides. I've never seen a station that was four-sided in any meaningful way. Length would also be a better proxy for capacity than area, especially with if tagged something like entry=left vs. entry=both etc. Then there's the kiosk, which could be well represented as a node on the line, typically on one end or the other. Nate Wessel (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Current usage is 1100+ linear ways vs. 33 areas. Areas may be easier for CartoCSS to consume, but ways are clearly much easier for a mapper to add: mapping areas from aerial imagery in cities like London with taller buildings is very error prone, whereas the way can easily be correlated with other mapped features. In general data in OSM should follow what is most convenient for mappers, not for consumers. If areas are needed buffering in the lines is entirely possible at some post-processing stage.SK53 (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
In reality usage is 32 824 nodes, 1117 areas and 10 lines. See http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/H87 and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=bicycle_rental "1100+ linear ways vs. 33 areas" is probably misinterpretation of taginfo stats. Note that on taginfo "way" category covers both lines and closed ways forming areas, while relations may be not only mutipolygons. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nate I would say the bike station comprises the space the bicycles take up. It is clear that this is a dynamic property, but there will usually be some bikes at any time, and the space is reserved for them. —Dieterdreist (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like OSM-carto does not currently render amenity=bicycle_rental when mapped as a linear way, example way 677305653. Could one of the advocates of this tagging scheme open an issue in carto's bug tracker please? --Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Crossposts

It was also discussed (without support for tagging as lines) at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/044081.html and https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1552842220046300 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)