Hi all. I have been looking at EV charging in OpenStreetMap. As you may know, the world of EV charging has evolved a lot over the last decade. This has led to some tagging which now seems odd, possibly even wrong.
I have previously posted about the Tesla charger sockets. Today I want to post about bicycle charging.
As things current stand bike chargers use the same amenity=charging_station tag as EV chargers. Personally this seems odd now so I wanted to start a discussion.
Why odd?
We are now at the point where the number of EV (car) charging stations way way outnumbers bike charging infrastructure. It seems odd now to have both using the same tag, especially as most mappers donât add bicycle=no to the car chargers.
Furthermore car charger output (in kW) has increased a lot since the early days. Oddly bike charging is probably closer to amenity=device_charging_station than amenity=charging_station now. Even more true given how we have seen a rise in the power output of USB to allow the rapid charging of phones and USB-C chargers for laptops.
What to do?
This is where I am open to hearing your ideas. Iâm super keen to hear from the cyclists among us as you will know much more about this than I do.
I was kinda thinking about this last night. One of the things that I think are missing is a tag to say that the station has a closed space (âlockersâ?) for the changer. This, together with domestic sockets, is useful for bike charging, but also for cars with slow chargers like my PHEV.
To be honest, I have never seen a charger that allows bicycles as tagged in OSM, so I donât know if they have infra for locking the bike (I guess they do); most if not all stations with this accommodation that I know donât have.
Finally, and this is aimed also to PHEVs, I have seen stations w/o lockers; I canât charge my car there.
Do you mean something that locks the cable in place (so it doesnât get removed / stolen)? Or do you mean a small locker (box) for those that have detachable bike batteries? - they remove them off the bike, plug them in and lock them inside the locker
Given that so few people add motorcar=yes, would you then recommend that amenity=charging_station is assumed to be for motor cars and not bicycles unless tagged otherwise? Same way that some other tags imply certain things (e.g highway=motorway implies foot=no in many countries).
In my opinion the current tagging is sufficient: In addition to the access tags the socket tag is usually sufficient. You canât (reasonably) charge a car on a domestic socket and you canât expect to charge a bicycle on a type2 connector.
We maybe should extent the tagging with some proper tags to specify the availability of locker boxes like mentioned by Marcos_Dione.
Is this intended to be just actual charging stations (which would presumably have at least common varieties of cables and locking for the entire bike or locker for battery)?
Or should this also cover random cafes that have a free socket somewhere and say itâs ok for customers to charge their ebikes?
If thereâs to be a common tag that encompasses both of these, I think âcharging stationâ may not be the best possible name for ebike charging amenity, although it is one possible implementation.
I agree that e-bike charging stations nowadays are more close to USB device chargers than to EV charging stations. If we want to establish a structured tagging we should consider the multitude of different charging stations available:
First thing I would suggest is not to mix USB device chargers with e-bike charging stations. For the charging stations we should be able to cover the different types of equipment offered. It makes a big difference, if there is a place where I can securely lock my bike while loading and if there are various adapters available or just household sockets.
Off topic
The biggest problem with these charging stations is vandalism imo. It did not take a year until 2 of the lockers of this station got broken up and the batteries stolen:
After that no one used these lockers again and the operator removed it meanwhile So I think any mapped station would require regular checkup to find out if it still exists.
In my oppinion, bicycle and car charging stations should get different presets in OSM editors due to the different features relevant for each. As far as I understand, this can also be solved by a subtag like charging_station=..., 275 hits on taginfo.
By the way, there was also a related discussion in the âGermanyâ forum on device_charging_station vs charging_station vs locker with respect to bicycles:
I am not sure if it is a good idea to draw a bike charger as in my sample pic no. 4 measuring some 60x40 cm on the ground as an area with amenity=charging_station and then squeeze 4 nodes man_made=charge_point + additional nodes for the lockers into it.
Due to the multitude of options I believe it would be better to develop a separate tagging structure for bicycle chargers. But before going into the details we should clarify the question of the top level tag.
If we go for amenity=charging_station + bicycle=only
we should do the same for amenity=device_charging_station and change that to
amenity=charging_station + electronic_device=only
If we to not want to touch amenity=device_charging_station we should also go for amenity=bicycle_charging_station to keep tagging schemes consistant.
I agree. Iâd expect that there is something bicycle parking next to the lockers. One could draw the amenity=bicycle_charging_station area around the lockers + parking. I agree that 4 squeezed nodes donât make sense. One man_made=charge_point node with capacity=4 should do it.
Are small_electric_vehicle= allowed to be charged in some of these though? @mueschelProposal:ElectricScooters - OpenStreetMap Wiki
Currently the unvoted =device_charging_station doesnât even reach ~1k. It is including both exposed sockets, and charging lockers. There should be possibility to change it. lockable= is documented together, and was proposed to be used for lockers. True that itâs not clear. Proposal:Device Charging Station - OpenStreetMap Wiki
A combination could be used with eg =*charging_station (whatever it is decided to be in the end) + bicycle_parking= to separate the charging and parking/storage aspect, to have bicycle_parking= reused. The *charging_stataion= can be limited to whether the sockets are exposed or locked.
Or instead of many different =*_charging_station , it could also be =*_charging_station + *_charging_station==electronics , =bicycle , etc. This may be useful outdoors for camping etc, if there are sockets specified for certain uses.
It should be considered together as well that there is are a few hundred power=outlet at the same time. While it could indeed be used for individual sockets, it seems less likely and practical than =charge_point for size and the layout. =device_charging_station as sockets are usually not scattered, and only signposted. Of course, charging is different from supplying mains electricity to appliances, but that be distinguished eg power:outlet==charging vs =power_supply as well.
To illustrate the possible overlap, there are electric-powered motorized suitcase now, which could be autonomous-driving follower robots, or rideable scooters. There are other âsmartâ luggage that can only charge electronics from USB ports. They would probably be charged from the same sockets as electronics at airports, stations, and piers. Electric unicycles should be chargeable easily as well.
I didnât think of storing the battery inside but itâs not a bad idea either. No, I was thinking of storing the charger inside. I already did this a couple of times with my PHEV. The idea is that that way they canât steal the charger.
The door circled in the right opens to both the sockets (Type 2 and some/most times domestic too) and a space below, circled on the left, where a domestic charger or a battery can be placed. But there is no place to lock the bike, so I guess you really canât charge your bike there unless you leave the battery inside instead.
If motorcar=yes is assumed by default, does that mean that âI donât know if EV charging is availableâ would have to be tagged as motorcar=no? Or that a amenity=charging_station could not be added at all without knowing about EV charging?
Also, hereâs a map* of locations that advertice cyclist friendly service, including ebike charging (for customers). Itâs generally not possible to find out the specifics online. Can this be tagged with amenity=charging_station? I would assume most of these places do not have a purpose-built charging station. Or would there be a need for another tag about ebike charging?
*Some of the locations on this map are wrong, please donât actually tag anything at all using only it as a source.
I know the locations on that map have ebike charging available, because they participate in Welcome Cyclist program, where free ebike charging is one of the prerequisites.
I have no idea what services they offer to EV, as my source of information says nothing about that. So my question is, does the current tagging model work for this situation? Or is it out of scope and if it is, does that lead to a desirable outcome for tagging and consuming services for ebikes?
Edit. Essentially this boils down to how much work do I need to do to find the correct value for motorcar=* if Iâm a mapper whoâs only interested in ebikes. If the answer is non-zero, I would suggest that a new tag is needed for ebike charging
Well like you said, you cannot use this source on itâs own as it is not accurate enough. But if it was, then adding them as amenity=charging_station without adding any motorcar=* tag would just lead to most end consumers assuming these are car chargers in my opinion. Like I said earlier, I think most amenity=charging_stations tagged so for are for cars and that is what many will see as the default assumption for this tag. I think it is too late to un-pick that as there would simply be too many features that need re-surveying.
I mean, even using bicycle=only is mostly useless for bicycle owners (does it means it has schuko, so it is universal but I have to be carrying my own charger in my panniers? Or does it only have bosch_3pin so great for those bicycles and no need to carry a charger, but is completely useless for shimano_steps_5pin bicycle users?) etc. (Just like a car with chademo has a bad luck at Tesla-supercharger-only charging station or whatever).
Also, I understand there exist specialized hgv-only chargers, which wonât fit regular electric cars either.
In other words, bicycle=only would only help non-bicycle users to know that this station is (maybe) useless for them.
On the other hand, if that amenity=charging_station also was mapped with e.g. socket:schuko=4 + socket:schuko:voltage=230 + socket:schuko:current=16 + socket:chademo=2 + socket:type2=2 (+their voltage/current ratings when applicable) it wouldâve actually been useful for everyone involved - be it electric bicycle, electric scooter, car, or HGV users (or even folks with laptops or phones with or without chargers).
Yes. Also, as I gather, there are some adapters to charge bicycles on car chargers.
So, that reinforces my opinion that we should tag what is actually on the ground (i.e. how many of which sockets and their capabilities) instead of our interpretations (e.g. âoh that is bicycle only charging stationâ â well, guess what, I likely can charge my laptop on that schuko too). Itâs more verifiable too.
