[Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

[Paul Johnson]

On 11/19/2010 06:20 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Richard Welty <rwelty-Fu78d/DMHRmZEsiFbgKFjg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On 11/19/10 1:25 PM, john at jfeldredge.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that it makes more sense to have a separate tag for the weight
>>> limit.  I would also not be surprised to find certain roads forbidden to
>>> trucks over a certain length, or forbidding trucks with tandem trailers,
>>> because the road in question doesn't have room for a vehicle that size to
>>> turn around.
>>>
>> we already have maxweight, and weight limits are common in
>> these parts (i suspect the county is trying to make sure that
>> fully loaded gravel trucks are limited to state highways). i just
>> use maxweight where it's appropriate.
> 
> At the other extreme are signs like this:
> http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.25903,-81.764159&spn=0.031828,0.082397&t=k&z=15&layer=c&cbll=28.259019,-81.764282&panoid=Xn0O_XTCa26l3-SxRHJrkA&cbp=12,323.76,,0,11.47
> Usually you see them at bridges (since different truck configurations
> will put different loads on the bridge) but I don't recall there being
> a bridge on this road.

Bridges aren't the only highways susceptible to load stress, however.
Forest service, county and especially privately owned roads are often
heavily patched chipseal and can potentially contain some really steep
grades that simply make some configurations physically impassable or
unaffordably expensive to maintain if they are subjected to heavier loads.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20101119/ab9ea8ae/attachment.pgp>