Stands, "M stands" and "P stands"

[mvl22]

Rob Nickerson wrote in: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-September/023516.html

"You suggest "bicycle_parking=stands" for 3 cases of the TfL data: Stands, "M stands" and "P stands". I shall let others comment on whether we want to introduce new OSM tags for these. Perhaps cyclists have an interest if one is preferable to another. (See: https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#prk_mstand )"

[mvl22]

Richard Fairhurst wrote in: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-September/023522.html

• Bicycle parking stand types: The CID has several variations on the Sheffield stand [...] downstream users of the data would not consider the difference important – they simply care mostly whether the frame is lockable or not.

"It's perhaps a bit more nuanced than that - as a cyclist I find the type of stand has a big impact on whether it's lockable or not (around town I generally ride a Bike Friday New World Tourist, which has a weird little locking point, and use a mini D-lock; not all stands co-operate!). But I'd agree this isn't really a priority in any case."

[mvl22]

Currently the code shows that we map all of PRK_SHEF, PRK_MSTAND, PRK_PSTAND to bicycle_parking=stands.

The wiki has no further definition, and it would be a shame to lose the distinction here, but it is nonetheless a type of stand. We could add a note or do what is normally done with a sub-definition, namely use a coloned key.

@systemed Action here is:

• For PRK_MSTAND, keep the existing bicycle_parking=stands and add bicycle_parking:stands=M stand
• For PRK_PSTAND, keep the existing bicycle_parking=stands and add bicycle_parking:stands=P stand

[systemed]

Done but with =m_stand and =p_stand, which is more idiomatic OSM.

[mvl22]

Sorry, yes, agreed that is more correct.