From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Sounds good, I am using ~the same tag already. MikeCollinson 19:34, 8 October 2007 (BST)
  • I don't know who the proposer is, so I've taken the liberty of opening this for voting. Seems a simple one! MikeCollinson 13:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How does one distinguish between repair and sales? I know a shop (very cheap), but very limited opening hours and no repair. And an other one that seems to specialise in repair (called bicycle garage in Dutch) --Polyglot 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

description=* -- MapFlea 14:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The description tag is meant for unstructured free text, not for storing structural information. In countries with a lot of cyclists, there is a clear distinction between shops that sell bicycles and places that repair them, compare this to a shop=car and a shop=car_repair.--Pbb (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

isn't this a likely candidate for merging into shop=outdoor ? bycicle shops seem to be a subset of outdoor ones, so they could be designated with type=bycicle afterwards. --Richlv 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No. In many countries, bicycles are seen as a mode of transport, instead of sporting goods. Merging with shop=outdoor makes just as little sense as merging shop=car or shop=shoes with shop=outdoor. (Both of those are also mostly used outdoors, and can be used in sporting contexts.) Outdoor/sport shops may offer a collection of sporting bikes, just as they may have sporting shoes, but that doesn't make bicycle (or shoe) shops into sporting shops. --Pbb (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


  • I approve shop=bicycle --MikeCollinson 13:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle, in fact I'm already using it. --Gregoryw 08:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve. FredB 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- Ulfl 22:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- Ramack 20:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- Gummibärli 21:41, 13 November 2007 (CET)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- Colin Marquardt 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- Semper 22:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- Fröstel 23:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- David.earl 09:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle --Florianschmitt 09:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- motp 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- MichaelK 09:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- Gravitystorm 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- Dennis de 22:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle -- fuesika 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle --Polyglot 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve shop=bicycle --Simon Daw 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional keys

The service: prefix looks incredibly clunky. I can see what you're trying to do here, but this isn't the way to do it - primarily because Key:service (which describes service roads) is in widespread use, and this shouldn't be a subtype of it. Let's just put everything in bicycle: instead, which has the advantage that it's about bicycles. I'm inteintionally ignoring the mess that is the railway usage of service=*, and the equally incoherent and contradictory Tag:shop=car usage of service=*. Ugh.) --achadwick 11:20, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Though of course hiving it under something that's already used for bicycle-related Access makes just as much of a mockery of the namespace concept as the original proposal, excuse the undo. Would shop:bicycle=* work out? I know it got rejected, but I'm not sure why. --achadwick 11:36, 9 June 2011 (BST)
Why is there any need for prefixes? There is now both a repair=* key and a service:bicycle:repair=* key on the documentation page. Wouldn't it be good enough using the keys without prefix/namespace?--Pbb (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the necessity of the "service" prefix, as it doesn't add more information to the tagging (just needs space).
There are also possible tags like bicycle:parts, bicycle:clothes which aren't a service.
IMHO a Namespace is necessary to differentiate the offered services, especially if combined with shop=motorcycle).
As an example, if a bicycle shop sells scooters beside, you could use motorcycle:sales=yes and motorcycle:type=scooter instead of creating a whole new entry (second shop). The same applies if a motorcycle shop also repairs bicycles and sells parts, in this case you could add bicycle:repair=yes, bicycle:parts=yes (and possibly bicycle:sales=no). I can also imagine adding bicycle:parts=yes to supermarkets (while they won't offer service). So why don't we just leave the "service" prefix away ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree now that using a prefix is smart, for the situations where a general shop (for example a sports shop) also sells and/or repairs bicycles. Maybe repair:bicycle=* and retail:bicycle=* would be better than bicycle:repair=* and bicycle:retail=*? --Pbb (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

why service:bicycle:second_hand tag?

why we have to add information of service:bicycle? the first tage shop=bicycle give informations of what we are searching just add the tag second_hand=yes would be more simple for mapper on OSM. --Yod4z 14:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it might be a general second-hand shop that also sells second-hand bicycles. (Though I agree the service prefix seems superfluous.) --Pbb (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


I just saw this on the mailinglist and thing it's stupid and should not be used. It's a bicycle shop so it should only be used when it actually sells bikes. Most of the data comsumers will just ignore bicycle service:bicycle:retail=no. I don't see the issue with using different tags for repair or rental only. --AndiG88 (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

bicycle:retail=no would be interesting in countries that don't have specialized bicycle shops, where all bicycles are sold in sport shops for example, but not every sport shop might sell bicycles. --Pbb (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional use of "e-bike" instead of "bicycle" in the additional keys?

I suggest to extend the use of additional keys to e-bikes in order ro indicate whether a shop sells/repairs e-bikes. Hence e.g. "service:e-bike:retail=yes" would mean that this shop sells e-bikes (while nothing is said about normal bikes) and "service:bicycle:repair=yes + service:e-bike:repair=no" would indicate that this shop can repair normal bikes, but no e-bikes. I think this is useful information for cyclists. Any objections?