There is nothing inherently wrong with a question having content in it that doesn't directly answer the question. Supplemental information can add a lot of value to a question. It can provide additional context to understand a situation, or an easy way of avoiding a situation in the first place. We certainly don't want to discourage people from having any supplemental information in their posts. It's only when there's so much of it that it obscures the actual answer or when it's entirely unrelated to the question that it becomes a problem.
As we are having this discussion we need to distinguish between the different types of posts with extra information in them.
- Posts that answer the question and have additional information that supports that answer.
- Posts that answer the question but have so much supporting information that it's readability suffers.
- Posts that are just supplemental information and don't answer the question.
- Posts that "technically" answer the question but are overshadowed by a lot of tangentially related information.
How we approach answers with "lifehacks" should depend on what which of these categories the answer falls into.
If a post answers the question and the extra information supports that answer and doesn't hinder readability, nothing needs to be done. The answer is good as is.
If a post answers the question and the extra information supports that answer but it hinders the readability, we should treat it like any other post with readability problems and try to fix them while preserving the intent of the answer. This can be done either by asking the OP to make changes or by making edits for clarity if confident that you can do so while preserving intent.
If a post doesn't answer the question, we can treat it like any other post that fails to do so. Request clarification, suggest improvements, VTD if no improvements are made.
The last category is the most subjective to quantify and the most difficult to deal with. If you encounter a post that "technically" answers the question but has a lot of information that you can't see how it is related, the ideal result would for the answer to be edited so that it clearly answers the question and the additional information supports that answer. Unfortunately since you don't understand how the information is related you can't in good faith make an edit that preserves the intent of the post. Similarly since it does answer the question, treating it the same as a post that fails to is unfair. If we're reasonably sure that the OP is acting in good faith, and not using the fact that they technically answered the question to go on an unrelated rant, we should request clarification from the OP about how the content is related and try to work with them to improve their answer either by removing or editing content.
With respect to the answer referenced in the question, it does justify the existence of its supplemental information, and falls into the category of posts that answer the question but with diminished readability. The "problem" is that the answer gets carried away talking about all the, admittedly, cool, water carrying options available for cyclists these days. I felt that editing the amount of enthusiasm about gear down, and removing the large pictures, would improve the readability of the answer and pivot the focus back to its interpersonal core.