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?

Combination with amenity-tag. The case of the community centre bicycle shop

I wonder how best to tag a community centre where the primary role towards the public is to repair (bi)cycles, perhaps sell second hand bicycles and/ or provide assistance and tools for Do-it-yourself repair and maintenance. I tried to combine with the tag amenity=community_centre, but noticed that the latter tag takes precedence in rendering (at least on the standard map). So the bike repair shop does not show up as such on the map. Kind of defeats the purpose. Here are some examples through an overpass-turbo. The Munich and Oslo and Stavanger examples are closest to what I am thinking of. Perhaps the best solution is to drop the amenity tag. Instead use ownership=private_nonprofit or public_nonprofit to indicate a difference from a commercial shop, that is simple to use in queries? Using two nodes with the two tags, it is difficult to know which will overshadow the other. MortenLange (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)