[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

[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. 

99% will never have any reason to think about it.

Phil (trigpoint)