[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

martinq osm-martinq at fantasymail.de
Sun Jun 23 20:10:02 UTC 2013


>> 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 @ axles>3; Y @ axles>4...


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




More information about the Tagging mailing list