Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
2013/6/27 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com In fact in Germany with a normal car licence before the year 200? it is 7.5t + 4.5t = 12t. actually applying some particular other exceptions it is almost 18t, 7.5t + 10t (special kind of trailer with 2 axes that count as one double because the wheels are closer than 1m) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
Am 25.06.2013 um 23:36 schrieb Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: Therefore, the prohibiting sign with the hgv symbol only bans vehicles registered as vans and hgv's, i.e. not for example buses. Unlike in for example Germany, where that sign seems to refer to (gross) weight only. No, in Germany that sign does not exclude vehicles transporting people (e.g. SUVs, buses), just like agreed in the Viennese convention. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
sign does not exclude vehicles transporting people Indeed, yes, I missed the last bit: ausgenommen Personenkraftwagen und Kraftomnibuse Seems strange to put it that way (everything but not X), when they mean Y. -- alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
On 25/giu/2013, at 22:48, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote: Just today I drove past a sign that means maxweight for combinations (1, with another sign below it, which corresponds to Key:maxbogieload. Different restrictions exist together on some roads, tuet need 1) http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ajoneuvoyhdistelm%C3%A4n_suurin_sallittu_massa_345.svg can you confirm that this is indeed maxweight (i.e. actual weight) and not gross_maxweight? cheers, Martin___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
On 26/giu/2013, at 11:46, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote: Seems strange to put it that way (everything but not X), when they mean Y. they mean what they write: everything but not X. Y is not only vehicles transporting goods, but also machinery, tools, etc. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
On 26/giu/2013, at 15:36, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote: can you confirm that this is indeed maxweight (i.e. actual weight Yes, the sign means actual weight. so despite the similarity with the single truck-sign and Finland having signed the vienna convention on traffic signs, it is then indeed a kind of maxweight, but different to the usual maxweight which is per vehicle, not per combination of vehicles. Interesting, which tagging do you use for this? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
Am 26.06.2013 18:56, schrieb Philip Barnes: On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 21:02 +0200, fly wrote: On 25.06.2013 20:43, martinq wrote: There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for the complete train. ... this one is for gross weight of vehicles _including_ trailers: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_253.svg Yes, see second part of my posting you responded to. But the example does not support your original idea of defining maxweight (=*actual weight* restriction) for complete trains instead of vehicles. It only supports it for gross_weight, but this was already pointed out by me. To focus back on the original topic: What is your conclusion regarding the proposal and the tagging of these restrictions? The crucial part is to keep tagging simple. We cannot expect that everyone knows the subtle legal differences (I didn't know them until I have done my own investigation). A trade-off between pure road-sign tagging (which makes interpretation difficult) and the meaning (which is complex due to vehicle, trailers, weight types, etc) is required. At least in Europe every person with a driving licence should know about gross_weight as this is one of the important number regarding your licence. I doubt many would have a clue, it is something that never occurred to me when I was learning to drive. The fact that you can drive either a 3.5t or 7.5t truck on you license, depending on when you passed your test, is totally irrelevant to most people. In fact in Germany with a normal car licence before the year 200? it is 7.5t + 4.5t = 12t. Hope people know their driving experience, though as you did not have to drive any truck nor with trailer to get that licence 99% will never have any reason to think about it. I wrote should know. Now they get reminded about it (adult education ?) I do not see any solution but to stick to the rules and use gross_weight but please convince me. Maybe we will get some help from the road_sign plugin for josm which can be localized. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for the complete train. ... this one is for gross weight of vehicles _including_ trailers: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_253.svg Yes, see second part of my posting you responded to. But the example does not support your original idea of defining maxweight (=*actual weight* restriction) for complete trains instead of vehicles. It only supports it for gross_weight, but this was already pointed out by me. To focus back on the original topic: What is your conclusion regarding the proposal and the tagging of these restrictions? The crucial part is to keep tagging simple. We cannot expect that everyone knows the subtle legal differences (I didn't know them until I have done my own investigation). A trade-off between pure road-sign tagging (which makes interpretation difficult) and the meaning (which is complex due to vehicle, trailers, weight types, etc) is required. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
On 25.06.2013 20:43, martinq wrote: There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for the complete train. ... this one is for gross weight of vehicles _including_ trailers: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_253.svg Yes, see second part of my posting you responded to. But the example does not support your original idea of defining maxweight (=*actual weight* restriction) for complete trains instead of vehicles. It only supports it for gross_weight, but this was already pointed out by me. To focus back on the original topic: What is your conclusion regarding the proposal and the tagging of these restrictions? The crucial part is to keep tagging simple. We cannot expect that everyone knows the subtle legal differences (I didn't know them until I have done my own investigation). A trade-off between pure road-sign tagging (which makes interpretation difficult) and the meaning (which is complex due to vehicle, trailers, weight types, etc) is required. At least in Europe every person with a driving licence should know about gross_weight as this is one of the important number regarding your licence. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
I take it the gross weight item on the driver's license is to restrict what type of vehicle you are licensed to operate? fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 25.06.2013 20:43, martinq wrote: There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for the complete train. ... this one is for gross weight of vehicles _including_ trailers: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_253.svg Yes, see second part of my posting you responded to. But the example does not support your original idea of defining maxweight (=*actual weight* restriction) for complete trains instead of vehicles. It only supports it for gross_weight, but this was already pointed out by me. To focus back on the original topic: What is your conclusion regarding the proposal and the tagging of these restrictions? The crucial part is to keep tagging simple. We cannot expect that everyone knows the subtle legal differences (I didn't know them until I have done my own investigation). A trade-off between pure road-sign tagging (which makes interpretation difficult) and the meaning (which is complex due to vehicle, trailers, weight types, etc) is required. At least in Europe every person with a driving licence should know about gross_weight as this is one of the important number regarding your licence. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
maxweight:type=gross_vehicle, gross_train, laden, empty, etc. definitions + _weight can be used as properties in conditional restriction, eg. maxspeed=80 @ (empty_weight5.5). Drawback is that only one maxweight-restriction per way is possible. Just today I drove past a sign that means maxweight for combinations (1, with another sign below it, which corresponds to Key:maxbogieload. Different restrictions exist together on some roads, tuet need 1) http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ajoneuvoyhdistelm%C3%A4n_suurin_sallittu_massa_345.svg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
(Sorry, the previous message was sent prematurely.) Different weight restrictions exist together on some roads, they need to be different keys. -- alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
On 25.06.2013 22:17, John F. Eldredge wrote: I take it the gross weight item on the driver's license is to restrict what type of vehicle you are licensed to operate? Exacly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
I take it the gross weight item on the driver's license Just to make sure, not all countries' driving licenses directly refer to weight; mine only states the allowed vehicle classes, and I can check the vehicle's papers to see of it's a B or a C. Effectively the difference is still max gross weight under vs. over 3.5t, but there could be exceptions. Therefore, the prohibiting sign with the hgv symbol only bans vehicles registered as vans and hgv's, i.e. not for example buses. Unlike in for example Germany, where that sign seems to refer to (gross) weight only. There are even some vans, that can be registered (when new) as vans or hgv's at will; what the first buyer chooses, affects the recuired driver's license, and the permitted load. (There are probably some tax reasons in there, too, like you may never ever have so called temporary seats in a hgv's cargo department.) -- alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
Am 23.06.2013 22:10, schrieb martinq: Note: I know that in US there are weight limits depending on the number of axles, but this could be tagged (later or already?) by conditional tagging like maxgross_weight = X @ axles3; Y @ axles4... In Germany it's similar: there are weight restrictions sometimes given as maximum-per-axis-weight, indicated by traffic sign 263 (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_263.svg ), which is similar, but not the same. 2) Trailers: In fact the gross weight applies to trailer and main truck separately [as far as I know, since both are more or less legally treated as separate vehicles], thus if there is a limit of gross 3.5t, then the truck gross and the trailer gross must be below, but both together can exceed the limit [as far as I know this also applies to weight limits, e.g. at bridge with max 3.5t weight limit the trailer and the truck are evaluated separately, but I haven't cross checked this]. But does this affect the proposed tagging? We tag the rules (e.g. here is a gross weight limitation), but not how they have to be applied in a specific case (does this limit apply for trailer and truck separately or combined?). What's these restrictions used for? If anybody uses them from the osm data (and if we tag them, that should be our target), a scenario would be the trucker planning how to get from A to B - e.g. by an osm based navigation system. This could be configured for the invididual truck: - maximum axe load: x tons - maximum gross weight: y tons - weight: z tons (with current load of course) (and of course width, length, height...) Now he want's to get a route, and this has to be definitively possible to go. Getting to a bridge with a truck and realizing you have to turn around on a street really hurts - and it costs a lot of time, even if the trucker can make it. So for the trucker estimations should be possible to make conservative: If there's a restriction in OSM and that fits for me under any reasonable interpretation, than it's a bug in OSM if I'm not able/allowed to drive there. With this it would be: - max_weight: the maximum weight of the complete vehicle (including truck and trailer, in the German traffic rules (Straßenverkehrsordnung, StVO) that's a Zug; if I interpret my dictionary right, in English it's a road train. - maximum gross weight: (however the tag is called then): the maximum weight the complete road train is allowed to have if fully loaded. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.dewrote: With this it would be: - max_weight: the maximum weight of the complete vehicle (including truck and trailer, in the German traffic rules (Straßenverkehrsordnung, StVO) that's a Zug; if I interpret my dictionary right, in English it's a road train. In the UK, this is called gross train weight or gross combination weight --- see https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-weights-explained ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
there are weight restrictions sometimes given as maximum-per-axis-weight, indicated by traffic sign 263 (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_263.svg ), which is similar, but not the same. There's http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxaxleload -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
With this it would be: - max_weight: the maximum weight of the complete vehicle (including truck and trailer, in the German traffic rules (Straßenverkehrsordnung, StVO) that's a Zug; if I interpret my dictionary right, in English it's a road train. -1 There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for the complete train. Let me explain: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_262.svg limits the permissible weight of a *vehicle*. The truck and the trailer are TWO distinct vehicles (!), thus - for the sign given above - the truck alone and the trailer alone must stay below 5.5t. The complete train may have a weight up to 11t! This it is not a good idea to define maxweight as weight limit for a road train. Instead we keep 'vehicle', the legislation of the country will define what is a 'vehicle'. Mappers should not have to worry about the exact interpretation of 'vehicle' in the context of semitrailers, agricultural tractors with trailers, etc. - maximum gross weight: (however the tag is called then): the maximum weight the complete road train is allowed to have if fully loaded. This sign http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vorschriftszeichen_7a_Gewicht.svg restricts the gross weight. But for highest level of confusion and inconsistency, the Vienna Convention restricts the gross weight of vehicle or combination of vehicles and not just vehicles, thus contrary to the road sign above, the trailer must be included. I sadly overlooked this. Thus if we define maxgross_weight per vehicle, the road sign cannot be tagged as maxgross_weight:hgv=5.5 as proposed. The proposal needs a fix! Since it applies to vehicles plus any trailers and not just vehicles (which are defined differently). And defining it as vehicle+trailer will add confusion and may not work in the international context outside the Vienna Convention countries. Any suggestions how to fix this? a) Introduce maxgross_train_weight=X? b) Keep maxweight=X, flush maxgross_weight (looks odd anyway) and add a new tag: maxweight:type=gross_vehicle, gross_train, laden, empty, etc. to qualify the maxweight? I would additionally define that the definitions + _weight can be used as properties in conditional restriction, eg. maxspeed=80 @ (empty_weight5.5). This suggestion also has better backward compatibility and it also enables country defaults. Drawback is that only one maxweight-restriction per way is possible. Opinions? martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
On 25/giu/2013, at 00:17, martinq osm-mart...@fantasymail.de wrote: There is no (common) restriction that limits the actual weight of truck+trailer, thus it makes no sense to define maxweight as limit for the complete train. Let me explain: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_262.svg limits the permissible weight of a *vehicle*. ... this one is for gross weight of vehicles _including_ trailers: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_253.svg cheers, Martin___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
maxgross_weight: All vehicles have a registered upper limit on their allowable mass (when fully loaded). This is often known as the Gross Weight, and it is found in the vehicle documentation. unfortunately it is more complicated because the amount of axis and eventually the weight of trailers also have to be taken into account, therefore I'd prefer to have a reference from the osm definition (where it applies, e.g. European Union) to the legal documentation or copy these settings from the relevant legal code. (sounds more complicated than it is, I.e. s.th. like gross weight rating as defined by the law where applicable) 1) In Europe the number of axles only play a role for the *maximum* possible gross weight for vehicles registration [in other words: the maximum maximum permissible weight]. If there is a signposted restriction to for example 5.5t gross, then it applies to all vehicles no matter how many axles they have. Thus the tagging is not affected. Note: I know that in US there are weight limits depending on the number of axles, but this could be tagged (later or already?) by conditional tagging like maxgross_weight = X @ axles3; Y @ axles4... 2) Trailers: In fact the gross weight applies to trailer and main truck separately [as far as I know, since both are more or less legally treated as separate vehicles], thus if there is a limit of gross 3.5t, then the truck gross and the trailer gross must be below, but both together can exceed the limit [as far as I know this also applies to weight limits, e.g. at bridge with max 3.5t weight limit the trailer and the truck are evaluated separately, but I haven't cross checked this]. But does this affect the proposed tagging? We tag the rules (e.g. here is a gross weight limitation), but not how they have to be applied in a specific case (does this limit apply for trailer and truck separately or combined?). As of the suggestion maxgross_weight wouldn't it be better to use gross_maxweight? Looks a little bit engineered, since tags typically use the natural language order of words. But even I must confess that maxgross_weight looks also odd due to the '_' inconsistency. Since I cannot foresee a meaning conflict by just using the abreviated maxgross, this could be an alternative. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
On 21/giu/2013, at 01:05, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: maxgross_weight: All vehicles have a registered upper limit on their allowable mass (when fully loaded). This is often known as the Gross Weight, and it is found in the vehicle documentation. unfortunately it is more complicated because the amount of axis and eventually the weight of trailers also have to be taken into account, therefore I'd prefer to have a reference from the osm definition (where it applies, e.g. European Union) to the legal documentation or copy these settings from the relevant legal code. (sounds more complicated than it is, I.e. s.th. like gross weight rating as defined by the law where applicable) As of the suggestion maxgross_weight wouldn't it be better to use gross_maxweight? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
Hi, I agree that the meaning is correct (legally), but I think we need to try and simplify the jargon in the one line summary section. How about: maxgross_weight: All vehicles have a registered upper limit on their allowable mass (when fully loaded). This is often known as the Gross Weight, and it is found in the vehicle documentation. This tag indicates the maximum value that can use the way irrespective of whether the vehicle is fully loaded or not. Obviously, keep the legal meaning, but add this (or similar) for people who just want a quick answer. Rob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight
Restrictions on road access in many countries of the world make use of two different types of weight: 1) Actual weight of vehicle including empty vehicle + driver + passengers + load [the weight on a weighbridge] 2) Maximum permissible weight for a vehicle, typically used for registration and found in vehicle documents [and is a fixed number for a specific vehicle, not depending on the load] But current tagging does not distinguish the two types, neither maxweight=x nor access:conditional=... @ (weightx). But the difference is important for HGV routing and truck drivers and should be tagged more precisely. Since most car driver [and thus the average mapper] typically don't have to care know details about weight restrictions, I assume that many mappers are not aware of the subtle difference in the meaning of weight related road signs [at least I haven't until I investigated the situation]. Thus I decided to summarize previous discussions and my knowledge in following proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/gross_weight I have added many examples to illustrate when road signs mean gross weight and when the refer to the actual weight. To avoid a German/Austrian bias I based many examples on the Vienna Convention on road signs and signals, which has been implemented in many countries in the world (this convention is the reasons why road signs look very similar in many countries). I know that some countries have not fully implemented this convention and thus there a country specific deviations, thus please update the comment column of the example if your country deviates from the convention rules. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
