<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 3, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" class="">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><pre style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class="">But it will not be replaced by the surface key as the tag represents 2 things.</pre></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think trying to represent the two ideas is too difficult. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking" class="">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""> </div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">the implication for these two tags should become an explicit “no” via a new tag.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We should change =floor to =surface </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">and </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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). </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It should be easy to add an iD preset to include it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That should cover the situation.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Javbw</div></body></html>