Based on the interesting discussion so far, following conclusions from
my side:
(1) Remove the '_':
maxgross_weight was a horrible choice from my side. If we have
'maxaxleload', then maxgrossweight is OK, but less irritating.
(2)
For consistency with (1), for the value in conditionals is also changed
to 'grossweight' without '_', e.g. maxspeed:hgv = 80 @ (grossweight >
7.5 AND 22:00-05:00)
(3) Don't touch 'maxweight' definition:
Since we must assume that 'maxweight' (100,000 uses!) was used for gross
weight limits (e.g. signs with the lorry + weight) as well as for actual
weight limits (e.g. signs with weight number only) in the past, any
attempt to modify the tag retrospectively just causes chaos [the tag is
somehow broken or at least very imprecise].
Only gradual replacement by new & more precise tags and the
recommendation to use the new tags instead of the inaccurate 'maxweight'
[deprecate maxweight] makes sense.
(4)
If definition of 'maxweight' is not changed [see (3)], we need a new tag
for the "actual" weight.
I propose 'maxladenweight', because "laden weight" seems to be used at
least in legal texts. Also acceptable could be "total weight".
(5) Vehicle, trailers and tractor+trailer(s) combinations:
Yet not properly considered in the RFC: Both weight limits (gross and
laden) can apply to 'vehicles' (which is a trailer *or* the motor
vehicle in front) or to 'combinations' of tractor+trailer(s).
Since they occur in all possible combinations in the real world, we need
a tagging system for these 2x2 cases.
I am not sure how to address that, but instead of inventing a vehicle
category combination system like maxladenweight:hgv+trailer or
maxladenweight:combination, I tend to propose following solution:
maxladenweight/maxgrossweight: Limit for the the laden/gross weight of a
vehicle, the vehicle can be restricted by adding an existing category,
e.g. :hgv
maxladencombinationweight/maxgrosscombinationweight - limit for the
laden weight of the vehicle *and all its trailers* (sum). The type of
the tractor vehicle can be restricted by adding an existing category,
e.g. :goods or :motorcar [The tags are too long? Yes! Give me alternatives!]
I somehow hate it to add this complexity, since casual mappers require
deeper understanding about the different type of weight restrictions on
road signs (which is by far not common knowledge) and their tagging
differences. But if we want to have useful weight limit tags that make
sense for potential HGV routing, the four cases needs to be covered.
And with a "road sign to mapping" table, at least for the most common
road signs, it should be still feasible for casual mappers to map a
weight restriction. The good thing is that most road signs still just
require one tag.
(6) While the concept could be extended to even more weight related
restrictions (e.g. maxcurbweight, maxdryweight), the RFC will not
include them and will not be extended by me. I don't want to propose
tags I am not going to use. They can be added by another proposal if
somebody thinks they are important.
I will wait for responses if I understood the feedback right. After that
I will rework the RFC.
martinq
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
