Add rendering for amenity=bicycle_parking #591
Comments
|
Note that one of layers on the main OSM website shows bicycle parkings - see http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=55.5625&mlon=12.9759#map=16/55.5625/12.9759&layers=C I am unsure is it a good idea to display it on general purpose map. I would want it, but I have no idea about typical person, |
|
Btw, opencyclemap does not show bicycleparking which are tagged as area http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/134630491#map=18/50.81422/12.93110&layers=C |
|
The standard layer is not "OpenCarMap" though... No reason not to render bicycle parkings there. |
|
+1 |
|
Not sure how useful this is. What is the maximum distance a cyclist would want to walk to a bicycle parking? 20 meter? 50 meter? Typically not further than you can see around you, I would guess. Don't forget that every lamppost can serve as a bicycle parking. Can you give a situation in which this would be useful? If we render this, we should only render it on the highest zoomlevels. But personally (and I am an avid cyclist), I would prefer rendering it not at all on the main map. |
|
A situation where this would be useful is if you want to know in advance where you can park your bike at your destination, just like with a car. Also, the closest bike parking might be full and you need to find another one. This might be a case of cultural differences. At least in Sweden bicycle parking outside of bike stands in many cities is not allowed and you risk having your bike towed. I think bicycle parkings should render at the same level as car parks, as both means of transport should be handled the same. |
|
The main benefit is that after editing people are not confused that nothing appeared on the map and gives higher chance of noticing missing features or bad edits - and IMHO it justifies rendering it at the highest zoom level. Not sure whatever somebody would use it to find bicycle parking. |
This is at least weird idea. There is no reason to treat different means of transport in the same way. |
|
Why wouldn't anyone use the osm data to find bicycle parkings? And why is my argument about bicycle parkings being rendered at the same level as car parks weird? Please provide arguments. If nothing else, big bicycle parkings serve as landmarks. |
|
The major difference is that (at least in Poland) bicycle parking always takes significantly smaller area than car parking. The cultural differences are probably also important, in Poland number of bicycle parking is really low and almost nobody has trouble with using lampposts, traffic signs or fences. |
In the Netherlands (or other countries I'm familiar with) nobody would want to know this in advance. There is always a rack or lamppost close. Unless in the case of guarded/paid parking, perhaps. |
|
To understand your request better, do you have a Google Streetview link illustrating a typical bike parking in Sweden? How many bike parkings are there in a typical town center / how close together are they? |
|
http://goo.gl/maps/YRRpt http://goo.gl/maps/53xp2 http://goo.gl/maps/ykz3B http://goo.gl/maps/v62YV are the main bicycle parkings at the train station in my hometown. Note that no bikes are put at lampposts or road signs. They are often full and the last link is to an indoor paid parking. (http://goo.gl/maps/38ZBb this sign says bicycle parking forbidden, the one to the left with the text bicycle parking forbidden outside of stands http://goo.gl/maps/fZLrv has a long text about bikes being towed) http://goo.gl/maps/WHnGR is another example in another city close to me (even if it's been replaced by better parking in two levels closer to the trains). Here, there are usually signs on the buildings saying it's forbidden to park bikes outside of stands. http://goo.gl/maps/ZFIeJ is an example from a smaller village with about 3000 inhabitants. As you can see, bicycle parkings are usually very organised in Sweden. |
|
On the other hand - typical bicycle parking in Poland: http://www.flickr.com/photos/magama/5982378736/ Kraków has many (more than 100) sets of small parkings like this, some are even wall loops. |
|
If "abundance of parking" is a criteria then it should also be a criteria for rendering of car parking, should it not? You can usually park your car on almost any street so why render parking lots? ;) |
|
I found a bike parking stand behind an regular visited building by chance on cycle map. I was not searching for a parking space. So i would be happy to have it on the main map at a high zoom. |
|
Looking at that bike parking in Sweden, I'd support rendering. On the other hand, the sad state of cycling infrastructure around the world is that car parking lots normally cover significant area, but bike parking is typically small, so I'm not sure. |
|
I don't think we should apply the lowest common denominator. If there is a somewhat good infrastructure for cycling somewhere I don't see why that can't be leading in the choices of what to render. I guess that these bigger collections of bike stands exist in other countries as well, even if putting the bike anywhere is more common. Just look at illegal street car parking in most southern and eastern European countries. People park everywhere where they can fit in the car in big cities, but that doesn't mean we stop rendering the legal car parks. (http://goo.gl/maps/EF99j) Also, 96,000 database entries. |
|
The most obvious solution is to renderer it depending on capacity. Say: 500+ on zoom 15 Also, private bicycle parkings should not be rendered, ones with bicycle_parking=wall_loops may be rendered half transparent (like private car parkings are rendered currently). |
|
We do have that opencyclemap that someone knocked up that is a osm layer. Surely those cyclist people use that map as it can choose not to render irrelevant information to them like traffic lights, etc. But maybe we could do the large scale ones by capacity/way size. |
|
I like @mkoniecz' idea of rendering them according to their capacity or way size, even though I would not render them before level 16 or 17. Even the largest bicycle parkings I know are not larger in size than a small parking lot. My suggestion: BTW, the French style renders all bicycle parkings on level 18+ (Example of a area with lot's of bicycle parkings (some of them with a capacity of only 4 bikes): http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=18&lat=49.01009&lon=8.41275&layers=B0000000FFFFFFF) |
|
2014-06-03 13:05 GMT+02:00 sb12 notifications@github.com:
+1 |
|
Here an example from Utrecht in the Netherlands. If you follow the street (to the North), you see bikes parked on the left along the full length of the street. Parts with bike racks alternate parts where the bikes are parked against the canal railing. In this case, I'm not sure how useful it is to only render the 'rack' parts as bike parking. I agree that a bicycle parking with high capacity (and guarded parking) certainly deserves to be |
|
We're not talking whether it should be tagged or not, only whether it should be rendered on this style. My point of view is that no, it shouldn't. There's a specialist rendering (OpenCycleMap) on the front page covering this topic already, and many other cycling layers are available. This stylesheet isn't intended to be a one-size fits-everyone map style. So I'm only interested in any discussion as to why they should be added to this map style, given there are already specialist renderings showing them. |
My fault, didn't mean to say that. Updated my comment. |
|
@Klumbumbus Bicycle parking mapped as areas are rendered just like nodes, but both need the capacity tag. |
|
@gravitystorm Are you saying that people who use bikes are in such an extreme minority that their mostly used objects should be treated like things as openpistemap and the like? I'd guess most people don't know about the cycle layer, and also, that layer doesn't render bicycle parkings tagged as areas... I'm actually rather surprised that this suggestion was met with such an enormous opposition. @math1985 I don't see why it wouldn't be helpful to tag and render bike racks like that, if we map and render car parkings like this: http://goo.gl/maps/KgjOc I don't see why so many seem to look at bicycle parkings as something of lower value than parking lots for cars. The main OSM layer is not OpenCarMap. |
|
@priteau Capacity tags are rare, and even though they may be counted from aerial photographs for car parks (even if I personally do it very rarely) this is impossible for bicycle parkings (they must be counted stand by stand on location). It may also be hard to make a good estimate. I think they should be rendered even if there is no capacity tag (also, as with car parks...), but maybe farther out with a high capacity value. |
No, I didn't say that, and I don't like this style of discussion either. |
|
@gravitystorm Neither do I (and I'm sorry if I offended anyone). The thing is that I don't understand the opposition against rendering of bicycle parkings. I actually just thought it was an easly remedied oversight. I haven't really seen any good arguments against rendering them. There are a lot of them in the database already, they are easily mapped from aerial photography (mostly), they are something everyone (who uses the transport method) needs and they have an equivalent rendered already when it comes to cars. If we render cycleways we should render bicycle parkings as well... |
|
For what it's worth, I feel that osm-carto should render bicycle parkings because:
That said, I do think that they should not be rendered too prominently, if only because they tend to be splattered all over city centers and would crowd the map very quickly. According to taginfo, 60% have a capacity tagged and 11% are ways. Maybe we can render everything at z18+ and only the bigger ones (tagged capacity or computed area) at z17 ? |
|
I'd like to +1 this issue, I'm a cyclist and I'd like to see it on the main map, since bicycle shops and cycleways are shown as well. If at least to be coherent. |
|
Something from topic X is rendered therefore everything from topic X should be rendered is a poor argument. I hope that nobody seriously thinks that rendering bicycle shops means that also bicycle parkings, contraflows, bike boxes and quality of cycleways should be rendered. |
|
@math1985 + @mkoniecz in the case you mentioned in the comment about lamp posts and street signs, OSM does have a tag for those under bike parking where |
matthijsmelissen
changed the title
|
I've just added an area for around 1,100 cycles next to Cambridge (UK) station, as a polygon not a point. The current rendering, as a result of this update, is now completely misleading. I would suggest it be rendered the same as a car park, at least for now. I'm well aware of OpenCycleMap, but in my view that is irrelevant to the discussion. An area of cycle parking should have the same status on the map as an area of car parking. |
|
2014-12-18 1:37 GMT+01:00 Martin notifications@github.com:
haven't been cycling for some time (shame on me), but I completely support |
|
I support adding bicycle parkings as an area since now we have very detailed imagery and many "points of interest" no longer look like the "points". The same with bicycle rental stations (they can be quite visible, like 10-30 slots in my hometown) - and many other things, not only bicycle-wise. I guess this trend toward micromapping things is about to raise. It's a general issue, and I think that it's important that we can map the areas like roads and pedestrian space more accurate than if we only care for routing. As of OCM - we have the cycling paths on both OCM and OSM, so we can have bicycle parkings not only on OCM if it is needed to cover the area. And I think we need the space to be filled by anything you can recognize - mvl22 is right: we shouldn't have the holes on the map just because we don't think some things are "general" or popular enough. |
|
Here is the area I mentioned. As you can see, it's completely not appropriate as a point location:
|
|
I also don't see a reason why this should not be rendered. Maybe not as prominent as big car parking areas, but definitely should be on the map. |
|
I had the (old) area around Cambridge station in mind when suggested rendering by area size. (To be honest it was the only area I could think of that was big enough) Individual points I think are a different matter though. The micro mapping of these 2 capacity ones (sometimes with another one 5 meters away) I would be against as they just add overall clutter. Personally I think we need zoom level 20! |
|
FYI there is now an icon available: |
* Add bicycle_parking icon from z18 or (for areas) 750 pixels, whichever is earlier. * Add yellow background for bicycle_parking (like regular parking). Thanks to @nebulon42 for the icon. This resolves gravitystorm#591 and part of gravitystorm#108.
* Add bicycle_parking icon from z18 or (for areas) 750 pixels, whichever is earlier. * Add yellow background for bicycle_parking (like regular parking). Thanks to @nebulon42 for the icon. This resolves gravitystorm#591 and part of gravitystorm#108.
|
I just hope people aren't going to "tag for the renderer" with this one in the Netherlands... With +20 Million bikes or so, and about every tree, lamp- or sign pole in cities used as "bicycle_parking" around here, I could see this icon going "viral" ;-) |
|
That kind of usage is not the kind that is normally called "tag for the renderer"... Actually, the opposite would be true. If people would avoid tagging bicycle_parkings because the map would be congested with icons, that would be mapping for the renderer, and that is a renderer problem. |
You are right... ;) |
see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbicycle_parking
Though on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking there is bicycle_parking=informal but even this is restricted to "Notably large or well-used railings, fences, or other street furniture(...)". |
|
I was thinking a bit about this topic during making #1364 - and my opinion is that amenity=parking and amenity=bicycle_parking of the same size have the same importance. In most places large bicycle parking is highly unusual while giant car parkings are nothing special what is probably resulting in "all bicycle parkings are unimportant". Also, with current rendering tiny and small parings are too prominent. |
|
Bicycles can be parked almost anywhere (to poles, parking meters). There are huge numbers of bicycle parking stands in dense areas. Both reasons argue against rendering bicycle parking. More rare features that one must actually hunt for I feel should be rendered: If carto had a way to dynamically set the zoom level, this would be different. The only bicycle parking area in 100 miles, along with the only drinking fountain, probably should render at z17. But on a college campus with hundreds of marked racks, it's hard to argue for rendering at all. |
Then those can be marked on the map as a pole or parking meter. My concern is about large areas of cycle parking and purely treating it as equivalent to car parking. I cannot see any logical reason why OSM should consider cycle parking less important than car parking. Either both area-based things should be shown, or neither. There is currently cycle parking here, but you would not know it: See my picture above showing the size of this area. |
As a city cyclist I can say that (at least in Warsaw) it's even more true regarding cars: =}
|
|
The kind of illegal parking @kocio-pl is talking about is the reason why it's strange to talk about bicycle parking at poles and parking meters. At least in Sweden the parking behaviour kocio-pl is describing would quickly lead to hefty parking tickets (in the area of 50-100 euros), and I guess this differs from country to country. When I was in Rome I noticed that people parked anywhere they could fit in a car, with no regard to parking signs. I guess in some countries the parking tickets are either to cheap or there are simply too few people patrolling the streets. Of course when we're talking about tagging bicycle parkings we're talking about bike stands, and not just everywhere one might or might not put a bike without having it towed. Just as we do not mark every part of the street amenity=parking If I were cycling in Warsaw I wouldn't dare put the bike anywhere since I wouldn't know about the local rules for bicycle parking. I'd put it in a bike stand because then I would feel certain it would not be removed by authorities. @mvl22 describes it well. |
and others
Please add rendering for amenity=bicycle_parking, both nodes and areas. The icon could be the same as car parking but with a small bicycle underneath, like the JOSM "rendering".
If i remember correctly, these used to render. Areas like these look very empty with no bicycle parking rendering: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/55.86100/12.91229 .
Also, there are about 96 000 uses in the database.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: