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.
99% will never have any reason to think about it. Phil (trigpoint) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
