Add rendering for amenity=bicycle_parking

[Grillmannen]

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.

[matkoniecz]

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,

[Klumbumbus]

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

[Grillmannen]

The standard layer is not "OpenCarMap" though... No reason not to render bicycle parkings there.

[joakimfors]

+1

[matthijsmelissen]

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.

[Grillmannen]

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.

[matkoniecz]

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.

[matkoniecz]

I think bicycle parkings should render at the same level as car parks, as both means of transport should be handled the same.

This is at least weird idea. There is no reason to treat different means of transport in the same way.

[Grillmannen]

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.

[matkoniecz]

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.

[matthijsmelissen]

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.

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.

[matthijsmelissen]

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?

[Grillmannen]

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.

[matkoniecz]

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.

[joakimfors]

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? ;)

[HolgerJeromin]

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.

[pnorman]

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.

[Grillmannen]

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.

[matkoniecz]

The most obvious solution is to renderer it depending on capacity. Say:

500+ on zoom 15 500-100 on 16 99-30 on 17 29-1 on 18 without capacity information on 19

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).

[Rovastar]

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.

[sb12]

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: Large (200+) on zoom level 17+ Medium (50+) on zoom level 18+ Others on zoom level 19+

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)

[dieterdreist]

2014-06-03 13:05 GMT+02:00 sb12 notifications@github.com:

I like @mkoniecz https://github.com/mkoniecz' idea of rendering them according to their capacity or way size

+1 some are very big, e.g. at the main trainstation in Rotterdam (2-level): http://www.velopa.com/~/media/Images/VelopA/Projecten/Rotterdam%20Centraal%20Station/Afbeeldingen/Fietsenstalling_Rotterdam_Centraal_2.png

[matthijsmelissen]

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 tagged rendered.

[gravitystorm]

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.

[matthijsmelissen]

We're not talking whether it should be tagged or not, only whether it should be rendered on this style.

My fault, didn't mean to say that. Updated my comment.

[priteau]

@Klumbumbus Bicycle parking mapped as areas are rendered just like nodes, but both need the capacity tag.

[Grillmannen]

@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.

[Grillmannen]

@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.

[gravitystorm]

@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?

No, I didn't say that, and I don't like this style of discussion either.

[Grillmannen]

@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...

[gravitystorm]

I'll repeat myself, for clarity:

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.

So please, no more discussing car parks, tagging from aerial imagery etc, it's not relevant.

[Grillmannen]

I have already given the argument that they should be rendered since we render cycleways and then logically we should render places to park the vehicles that go on cycleways (as compared to streets and car parks).

Also, the cycle layer does not render bicycle parkings tagged as areas.

[Rovastar]

As has been stated we have a cycle layer. Didn't know it didn't render bike parking areas. Maybe the joker that did that map could read this thread and add them.

We are lucky we have that great dedicated layer for cyclists.

We cannot render everything on this map. And people want everything...

I think that could be a case for large area on level 17 and above - I think we should eventually get to the stage where larger areas have "something" rendered and new rendering where suitable. Having "blank" areas is not great when there is something there and tagged. But not a massive priority. and possibly level 19 have individual ones. I think it could be handy even for non cyclists like myself - even just to know where cyclists might riding on pavements!

but really dedicated cyclists would use the cycle layer.

[dieterdreist]

2014-06-04 9:59 GMT+02:00 Grillmannen notifications@github.com:

@priteau https://github.com/priteau Capacity tags are rare, and as 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'd see it the opposite way: if we require capacity (and/or a large area) to avoid rendering small / minor bike parkings in medium/semi-high zoomlevels (e.g. 15/16/(17)), we will push tagging of these tags and get both: a reasonable rendering and better data. For zoom 18/19 I think these could be rendered in all cases.

I don't agree with the argument that they don't have to be rendered because there is open cycle map (even if it rendered the parkings on areas), because there is also the openaccomodation map but still we render hotels, there are open restaurant maps but we render the restaurants, etc.

Cyclists are one of the biggest sub-groups of mappers, and also an over-proportionate large group of map users (based on a gut feeling, admittedly), and their parkings are very important in some regions, while they are not important in other regions (with fewer cyclists, so nobody cares when you use the next lamp post to lock your bike at), and most probably in those areas where they are not important there will also be very few or none of those parkings, at least not big ones, so rendering them or not will not make any difference there.

[Rovastar]

The difference between the opencyclemap layer and any other examples that you come up with is that it is a layer on osm.org. that is the difference not another website.

[dieterdreist]

2014-06-04 11:40 GMT+02:00 Rovastar notifications@github.com:

The difference between the opencyclemap layer and any other examples that you come up with is that it is a layer On son.org. that is the difference not another website.

OK, but still this is not an argument, or are we going to remove bicycle shops, cycleways and drinking_water fountains from the main mapnik map as well? There is a point in rendering the parking less prominently (and/or later) in the osm-carto-style than it would make sense in the cyclemap, but especially the big bike parkings should not be deliberately omitted, as they are significant.

[matkoniecz]

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.

IMHO existence of specialist rendering is not making it more or less relevant for general purpose map.

[daganzdaanda]

I thought that a few years back bicycle parking was rendered in the default style, but I may be mistaken. Now, I am for including bike parking. I would like to see these on z18 and 19, with a small symbol. On z19, the area (if available) should be added. The symbol could be a bit less dominant than the ordinary "P", maybe a bit smaller or maybe a bit lighter in colour. If the map looks worse because of many "P"s in z18, then I'm fine with only showing them on z19.

[Klumbumbus]

Bicycle parking mapped as areas are rendered just like nodes, but both need the capacity tag.

I think this is not a good solution. Where is the place to discuss this?

[matkoniecz]

Where is the place to discuss this?

Here.

[Klumbumbus]

I mean the rendering of opencyclemap. This issue is about mapnik rendering.

[matthijsmelissen]

I think showing them on z18 is too early, given the example on the French map.

[Klumbumbus]

Bicycle parking mapped as areas are rendered just like nodes, but both need the capacity tag.

Since opencyclemap is specialized for bicycles and bicycle_parking is one of the important things there, it should render bicycle_parking even if there is no capacity tagged. To not render them without capacity is like not rendering streets which do not have a name tag.

[gravitystorm]

OpenCycleMap renders bike parking with and without capacities, and has done for many years. There was a bug in the stylesheet where this hasn't been working on z17 and z18 for the last couple of months, but someone else reported it to me and it was fixed last week.

[Klumbumbus]

ok, fine.

[vincentdephily]

For what it's worth, I feel that osm-carto should render bicycle parkings because:

• We already render some cycling-specific objects; parking is just one of them
• One of this style's stated goal is to help mappers, and we have a lot of bicycle parkings mapped
• It takes nothing away from opencyclemap, which displays a lot more cycling-related stuff and is more focused anyway.

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 ?

[nighto]

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.

[matkoniecz]

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.

[talllguy]

@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 bicycle_parking=informal. People can and do add those bike parking tags.

[mvl22]

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. No-one would have any clue looking at the map that it exists - there is just a gaping hole there now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.19480/0.13709

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.