Just signed up for this in San Francisco -- Only to find that Russian Hill, Nob Hill, and North Beach are excluded. Plus Fort Mason, the Presidio, and anything west of the Panhandle.
"San Francisco" it is not. Which I guess is fine, but they make you pay up-front, so I found that a bit of cheek.
Admittedly it's only $2, but even on principle it's annoying. They should be much more transparent in the signup process. They even geolocate you, so they'd be aware you're out of their coverage zone.
I feel for them having to deal with SF regulations - so no beef there.
My main niggle is a UX one. They really need to communicate the coverage in the signup process (especially if you're outside it when you sign up).
To their supreme credit - I contacted support asking clarification. They got back to me with an answer in minutes. Plus they refunded my initial payment.
> looks like they've excluded areas with more tourists
If it's anything like NYC they did this to avoid upsetting the existing bike rental businesses in those areas. They need to do this to get local government buy-in of the program.
This is exactly the case. My understanding is that they've pitched themselves as a commuting solution to get approval, and the local tourist bike rental places complain as they get closer to the standard tourist biking areas of Golden Gate Park and the bridge.
"San Francisco" it is not. Which I guess is fine, but they make you pay up-front, so I found that a bit of cheek.
Admittedly it's only $2, but even on principle it's annoying. They should be much more transparent in the signup process. They even geolocate you, so they'd be aware you're out of their coverage zone.
Edit: This is the coverage map: https://www.evernote.com/l/ACu5gnYkvnNKq6r8MPguZAczRDuT1B7p6...