[Tagging] capacity=* of bicycle sharing stations when no. of bikes > no. of stands

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Sun Mar 31 06:58:48 UTC 2019

Mar 31, 2019, 3:51 AM by www.haxor at gmail.com:

> Hi all,
> A new bicycle-sharing scheme called MEVO has just (sort of) started in Poland.
> It consists of 660 stations, which function like regular bicycle stands (no active parts).
> The bikes are station-less, which means they can be left in almost any place in the city except excluded zones (albeit for a small extra fee). The normal intended usage is to leave them at stations, which is verified by GPS geofencing. This implies that people may (and they did) leave more bicycles than there are stands at some stations.
> How should we map the number of stands, if it's not really a measure of capacity?
> One mapper that mapped them went with e.g. capacity="5 stands", but this doesn't seem elegant or parsable to me.
I would just move regular capacity, like with usual bicycle parkings.

For example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bicycle_parking_stand_1.jpg <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bicycle_parking_stand_1.jpg>
has capacity for 2 bicycles (one on each side) so bicycle parking with a single stand
would get capacity=2

Yes, it is possible to attach more if one really tries (sometimes much more), but 
it in regular use it has capacity for two.

The same with this stations - if it would have 5 stands with place to park one bicycle on
each side it would get capacity=10

capacity="5 stands" is problematic as it may mean that there is space for 5 bicycles
(because stands are too close), 10 (standard inverted U stands) or 30 (large spiral stands)
or 100 (large stand formed into shape of letters, each letter big enough to work like
single inverted U stand).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190331/e83041a5/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list