The first example might be better as “Cycle parking”, since people use a range of cycle types, and many cycle parking facilities are not designed exclusively for two-wheeled machines. Many disabled people use three or four-wheeled cycles to travel about. We already do this when describing parking spaces - “Accessible parking space” exists in OSM.
This wouldn’t have a major effect on how we’d edit, but small changes like this might help OSM become more inclusive. And it would make language more consistent. For example, bicycles use cycleways, whereas we should say cycles use cycleways.
What do you mean by “rename features”? Rename where?
And “cycle” includes also motorcycles, but for motorcycles we have different tags and I don’t know if it’s allowed to park motorcycles on amenity=bicycle_parking.
Yes, there would “have a major effect”. You have to ask all software to change this. For similar discussions before, it has been argued the underlying tags doesn’t matter. It’s simply a database, and should continue to use whatever most supported for compatibility. Changes can be made to the editing software interface and preset, as well as applications, to show other interpretations and localizations to users.
“Accessible” parking is termed as “disabled”, which I’m sure there can be some problems with it.
There could be a functional aspect to what you are concerned about. I doubt all =bicycle_parking should be assumed to fit a tricycle.
amenity=small_vehicle_parking was recently raised for personal transporters.