> On Feb 3, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But it will not be replaced by the surface key as the tag represents 2 things.
I think trying to represent the two ideas is too difficult.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking>
All of the other bicycle_parking values *imply an ability to lock your bike to
some object*, but =ground_slots and =floor (and =surface) imply *do not*,
because it is assumed that cyclists know about this already. The wiki has a
note: “no security” , but the security level is not represented in any of the
values for this tag. it is all assumed.
In places with high numbers of “surface” parking lots, this is well known -
but might be unexpected in places outside Asia. it should be explicitly tagged.
So I think it is too much to ask of these two existing tag definitions (or
=surface) to do double-duty in this manner, as none of the other tags do either.
the implication for these two tags should become an explicit “no” via a new tag.
We should change =floor to =surface
and
create a bicycle_parking:lock_point=no tag and add it to both =ground_slots and
=surface in the wiki (or “lockable” or some other similar value).
It should be easy to add an iD preset to include it.
There may be incidental poles (such as shelter supports for covered=yes) that
would allow a few to be locked informally, but that’s not available to all
users. When there is no rack/stand meant to hold bikes in position in any way
(=surface) and when there is no formal affordance for securing the bike
(:lock_point=no), both of these tags should be used.
That should cover the situation.
Javbw
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
