Maxweight wiki page changes

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Maxweight wiki page changes

Mateusz Konieczny-3
There were recently significant changes at OSM Wiki page about maxweight tag
and related tags. Review is welcomed.

See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight - major changes included fixing mistakes
in examples, adding additional examples, reformatting, documenting how object without max weight
sign may be tagged

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweightrating - page itself is quite new. Recent changes
included reformatting and new examples

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxaxleload - smaller changes, but for completeness:
fixing mistake and additional examples

Again, review is welcomed!

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Tobias Zwick
Reviewed it. That is some impressive work, thank you for this!

A few remarks:

1. Maxweight

1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.

1.2 At the examples: Conditionals should maybe better be catch-all, so i.e. axles>=3 instead of axles=3

2. Maxweightrating:

2.1 At the examples, Poland: This sign is actually an access restriction for all HGVs: hgv=no. By definition in EU laws and most other countries, a heavy goods vehicle is a goods vehicle with a GVWR of 3.5t and above. See the wiki page for Key:hgv for a longer explanation.

3. Maxaxleload mentions that weight in USA must always be given in short tons while the maxweight article also mentions pounds. Same with the article about maxbogieweight.

4. Maxbogieweight in Romania: I'd say a tri-axle is still a bogie.

Tobias 🌴


On July 3, 2019 9:43:12 AM GMT+01:00, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

>There were recently significant changes at OSM Wiki page about
>maxweight tag
>and related tags. Review is welcomed.
>
>See
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight
><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight> - major changes
>included fixing mistakes
>in examples, adding additional examples, reformatting, documenting how
>object without max weight
>sign may be tagged
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweightrating
><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweightrating> - page itself
>is quite new. Recent changes
>included reformatting and new examples
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxaxleload
><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxaxleload> - smaller
>changes, but for completeness:
>fixing mistake and additional examples
>
>Again, review is welcomed!

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

SimonPoole
Could both of you be a bit more transparent about the situation. You
should be disclosing that Mateusz is being paid to work on your project
and while not a direct employer-employee relationship, it is clearly
that the success of what Mateusz is working on is in the end dependent
on you accepting and merging it, and so you are not commenting on just
random third party wiki edits.

Am 03.07.2019 um 12:52 schrieb Tobias Zwick:

> Reviewed it. That is some impressive work, thank you for this!
>
> A few remarks:
>
> 1. Maxweight
>
> 1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
>
> 1.2 At the examples: Conditionals should maybe better be catch-all, so i.e. axles>=3 instead of axles=3
>
> 2. Maxweightrating:
>
> 2.1 At the examples, Poland: This sign is actually an access restriction for all HGVs: hgv=no. By definition in EU laws and most other countries, a heavy goods vehicle is a goods vehicle with a GVWR of 3.5t and above. See the wiki page for Key:hgv for a longer explanation.
>
> 3. Maxaxleload mentions that weight in USA must always be given in short tons while the maxweight article also mentions pounds. Same with the article about maxbogieweight.
>
> 4. Maxbogieweight in Romania: I'd say a tri-axle is still a bogie.
>
> Tobias 🌴
>
>
> On July 3, 2019 9:43:12 AM GMT+01:00, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> There were recently significant changes at OSM Wiki page about
>> maxweight tag
>> and related tags. Review is welcomed.
>>
>> See
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight> - major changes
>> included fixing mistakes
>> in examples, adding additional examples, reformatting, documenting how
>> object without max weight
>> sign may be tagged
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweightrating
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweightrating> - page itself
>> is quite new. Recent changes
>> included reformatting and new examples
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxaxleload
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxaxleload> - smaller
>> changes, but for completeness:
>> fixing mistake and additional examples
>>
>> Again, review is welcomed!
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

disclosing grant (was Re: Maxweight wiki page changes)

Mateusz Konieczny-3
I was unsure how much the grant that I disclosed in
should be mentioned (it is mostly offtopic here and mentioning it everywhere would be
spammy) but to explain situation in a bit of detail

- "it is clearly that the success of what Mateusz is working on is in the end dependent
on you accepting and merging it" - I will be still paid in case that what I will make will be
rejected and not included in StreetComplete (obviously, not applicable to cases with
broken patches rejected as not working). In such case I would release fork
(in case of patches rejected for legitimate reasons it would be done solely to
confirm that I actually implemented it but for some unforeseen reason it turned out to be a bad idea).

- "should be disclosing that Mateusz is being paid to work on your project"
If anyone should be mentioning this - then it should be me.

before even idea of the grant appeared and I deliberately focused on ideas that predated grant,
especially for ones that involve some tagging decisions
Note posting date of

- selection of things that I planned to do was entirely on my side and with rare exceptions of explicitly
listed tasks (like bypassing of censorship of Overpass Turbo in Russia) I am completely
free to change/modify tasks that I am working on. In case of someone else starting their
own work or presenting good ideas why things from
I have no problem with changing what will be done.

I can quote something like
tangentially related to implemented PRs but I am not convinced that it would be a good idea
(I even included it in my initial mail draft and deleted it as a spammy self-promotion offtopic to this list).
(should I also disclose that mentioning that my work on StreetComplete is sponsored by this
grant is encouraged by my grant?)

What would you think would be appropriate way of handling this?

Mention that it is related to a grant and include link to

Is anything missing in this diary entry?

Do something else?

3 Jul 2019, 13:03 by [hidden email]:
Could both of you be a bit more transparent about the situation. You
should be disclosing that Mateusz is being paid to work on your project
and while not a direct employer-employee relationship, it is clearly
that the success of what Mateusz is working on is in the end dependent
on you accepting and merging it, and so you are not commenting on just
random third party wiki edits.

Am 03.07.2019 um 12:52 schrieb Tobias Zwick:
Reviewed it. That is some impressive work, thank you for this!

A few remarks:

1. Maxweight

1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.

1.2 At the examples: Conditionals should maybe better be catch-all, so i.e. axles>=3 instead of axles=3

2. Maxweightrating:

2.1 At the examples, Poland: This sign is actually an access restriction for all HGVs: hgv=no. By definition in EU laws and most other countries, a heavy goods vehicle is a goods vehicle with a GVWR of 3.5t and above. See the wiki page for Key:hgv for a longer explanation.

3. Maxaxleload mentions that weight in USA must always be given in short tons while the maxweight article also mentions pounds. Same with the article about maxbogieweight.

4. Maxbogieweight in Romania: I'd say a tri-axle is still a bogie.

Tobias 🌴


On July 3, 2019 9:43:12 AM GMT+01:00, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
There were recently significant changes at OSM Wiki page about
maxweight tag
and related tags. Review is welcomed.

See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight> - major changes
included fixing mistakes
in examples, adding additional examples, reformatting, documenting how
object without max weight
sign may be tagged

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweightrating
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweightrating> - page itself
is quite new. Recent changes
included reformatting and new examples

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxaxleload
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxaxleload> - smaller
changes, but for completeness:
fixing mistake and additional examples

Again, review is welcomed!
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick



3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by [hidden email]:
1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
Added, with link back to this post
1.2 At the examples: Conditionals should maybe better be catch-all, so i.e. axles>=3 instead of axles=3
Changed

2. Maxweightrating:

2.1 At the examples, Poland: This sign is actually an access restriction for all HGVs: hgv=no. By definition in EU laws and most other countries, a heavy goods vehicle is a goods vehicle with a GVWR of 3.5t and above. See the wiki page for Key:hgv for a longer explanation.
Right, I modified it (changed recommended tagging to hgv=no and moved to a separate section
"related signs")
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Amaxweightrating&type=revision&diff=1874076&oldid=1873139

3. Maxaxleload mentions that weight in USA must always be given in short tons while the maxweight article also mentions pounds. Same with the article about maxbogieweight.

Appears to be changed already.
4. Maxbogieweight in Romania: I'd say a tri-axle is still a bogie.
I am not sure what is wrong here.

Disclaimer: my maxweight edits activity is done as part of


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Warin
On 05/07/19 19:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:



3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by [hidden email]:
1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
Added, with link back to this post

Here that would be called "maximum Tare weight". In the UK?

1.2 At the examples: Conditionals should maybe better be catch-all, so i.e. axles>=3 instead of axles=3
Changed

2. Maxweightrating:

2.1 At the examples, Poland: This sign is actually an access restriction for all HGVs: hgv=no. By definition in EU laws and most other countries, a heavy goods vehicle is a goods vehicle with a GVWR of 3.5t and above. See the wiki page for Key:hgv for a longer explanation.
Right, I modified it (changed recommended tagging to hgv=no and moved to a separate section
"related signs")

3. Maxaxleload mentions that weight in USA must always be given in short tons while the maxweight article also mentions pounds. Same with the article about maxbogieweight.

Appears to be changed already.
4. Maxbogieweight in Romania: I'd say a tri-axle is still a bogie.
I am not sure what is wrong here.

Disclaimer: my maxweight edits activity is done as part of



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Colin Smale

On 2019-07-06 05:03, Warin wrote:

On 05/07/19 19:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by [hidden email]:
1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
Added, with link back to this post

Here that would be called "maximum Tare weight". In the UK?

Probably "maximum unladen weight." "Tare" does exist as a word, and is frequently used in logistics (empty weight of containers etc) but AFAIK not in the context of traffic regulations.




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Warin
On 06/07/19 18:16, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2019-07-06 05:03, Warin wrote:

On 05/07/19 19:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by [hidden email]:
1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
Added, with link back to this post

Here that would be called "maximum Tare weight". In the UK?

Probably "maximum unladen weight." "Tare" does exist as a word, and is frequently used in logistics (empty weight of containers etc) but AFAIK not in the context of traffic regulations.


Possibly not where you are.. but

"registrable light motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is registrable and has a tare mass that is not greater than 2,794 kilograms."

From   https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2017/451/full

And also in other traffic legislation in Australia...

In the UK?

"(h)the manner in which the tare weight of road vehicles, or of road vehicles of any particular class or description is to be determined. "
from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Colin Smale

On 2019-07-06 10:48, Warin wrote:

On 06/07/19 18:16, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2019-07-06 05:03, Warin wrote:

On 05/07/19 19:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by [hidden email]:
1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
Added, with link back to this post

Here that would be called "maximum Tare weight". In the UK?

Probably "maximum unladen weight." "Tare" does exist as a word, and is frequently used in logistics (empty weight of containers etc) but AFAIK not in the context of traffic regulations.


Possibly not where you are.. but

"registrable light motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is registrable and has a tare mass that is not greater than 2,794 kilograms."

From   https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2017/451/full

And also in other traffic legislation in Australia...

In the UK?

"(h)the manner in which the tare weight of road vehicles, or of road vehicles of any particular class or description is to be determined. "
from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72


That is not a traffic regulation, that's about metrology. And by the way, I am speaking as a Brit, so native speaker and somewhat conversant with the laws and legal system. As I said, the word "tare" does exist, and is used in certain specific contexts. But in connection with road vehicles, everybody in the UK speaks of Unladen Weight.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-weights-explained




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Tobias Zwick
So "unladen" is the word used in UK legislation? Do you have a link?
Even if "unladen" is most commonly used in UK, I still find "empty" better because it is easier to understand what it means for non native speakers (simpler word).

In the US, "empty" seems to be most commonly used, as it is also written on the signs while at the same time, the word is not exclusively known/used in the US - unlike mall, freeway, etc.

"maxbogieweight" caused confusion earlier and was misunderstood as synonymous to "maxaxleload" recently. "maxemptyweight" I think does not need documentation to clarify what it stands for, "maxunladenweight" might.

In the end, UK naming should usually win, but maybe "empty vehicle weight" does not sound so exotic to British ears?

Tobias

On July 6, 2019 11:46:33 AM GMT+02:00, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> wrote:

>On 2019-07-06 10:48, Warin wrote:
>
>> On 06/07/19 18:16, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> On 2019-07-06 05:03, Warin wrote:
>> On 05/07/19 19:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> 3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by [hidden email]:
>> 1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key
>maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
>> Added, with link back to this post
>
>Here that would be called "maximum Tare weight". In the UK?
>
>Probably "maximum unladen weight." "Tare" does exist as a word, and is
>frequently used in logistics (empty weight of containers etc) but AFAIK
>not in the context of traffic regulations.
>Possibly not where you are.. but
>
>"registrable light motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is
>registrable and has a tare mass that is not greater than 2,794
>kilograms."
>
>From  
>https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2017/451/full
>
>And also in other traffic legislation in Australia...
>
>In the UK?
>
>"(h)the manner in which the tare weight of road vehicles, or of road
>vehicles of any particular class or description is to be determined. "
>from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72 
>
>That is not a traffic regulation, that's about metrology. And by the
>way, I am speaking as a Brit, so native speaker and somewhat conversant
>with the laws and legal system. As I said, the word "tare" does exist,
>and is used in certain specific contexts. But in connection with road
>vehicles, everybody in the UK speaks of Unladen Weight.
>
>https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-weights-explained

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Philip Barnes
Unladen is certainly the used, and understood, way of expressing such restrictions in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-weights-explained

Phil (trigpoint)

On Saturday, 6 July 2019, Tobias Zwick wrote:

> So "unladen" is the word used in UK legislation? Do you have a link?
> Even if "unladen" is most commonly used in UK, I still find "empty" better because it is easier to understand what it means for non native speakers (simpler word).
>
> In the US, "empty" seems to be most commonly used, as it is also written on the signs while at the same time, the word is not exclusively known/used in the US - unlike mall, freeway, etc.
>
> "maxbogieweight" caused confusion earlier and was misunderstood as synonymous to "maxaxleload" recently. "maxemptyweight" I think does not need documentation to clarify what it stands for, "maxunladenweight" might.
>
> In the end, UK naming should usually win, but maybe "empty vehicle weight" does not sound so exotic to British ears?
>
> Tobias
>
> On July 6, 2019 11:46:33 AM GMT+02:00, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >On 2019-07-06 10:48, Warin wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/07/19 18:16, Colin Smale wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2019-07-06 05:03, Warin wrote:
> >> On 05/07/19 19:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >> 3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by [hidden email]:
> >> 1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key
> >maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
> >> Added, with link back to this post
> >
> >Here that would be called "maximum Tare weight". In the UK?
> >
> >Probably "maximum unladen weight." "Tare" does exist as a word, and is
> >frequently used in logistics (empty weight of containers etc) but AFAIK
> >not in the context of traffic regulations.
> >Possibly not where you are.. but
> >
> >"registrable light motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is
> >registrable and has a tare mass that is not greater than 2,794
> >kilograms."
> >
> >From  
> >https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2017/451/full
> >
> >And also in other traffic legislation in Australia...
> >
> >In the UK?
> >
> >"(h)the manner in which the tare weight of road vehicles, or of road
> >vehicles of any particular class or description is to be determined. "
> >from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72 
> >
> >That is not a traffic regulation, that's about metrology. And by the
> >way, I am speaking as a Brit, so native speaker and somewhat conversant
> >with the laws and legal system. As I said, the word "tare" does exist,
> >and is used in certain specific contexts. But in connection with road
> >vehicles, everybody in the UK speaks of Unladen Weight.
> >
> >https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-weights-explained
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

--
Sent from my Sailfish device
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Warin
In reply to this post by Colin Smale
On 06/07/19 19:46, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2019-07-06 10:48, Warin wrote:

On 06/07/19 18:16, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2019-07-06 05:03, Warin wrote:

On 05/07/19 19:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by [hidden email]:
1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
Added, with link back to this post

Here that would be called "maximum Tare weight". In the UK?

Probably "maximum unladen weight." "Tare" does exist as a word, and is frequently used in logistics (empty weight of containers etc) but AFAIK not in the context of traffic regulations.


Possibly not where you are.. but

"registrable light motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is registrable and has a tare mass that is not greater than 2,794 kilograms."

From   https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2017/451/full

And also in other traffic legislation in Australia...

In the UK?

"(h)the manner in which the tare weight of road vehicles, or of road vehicles of any particular class or description is to be determined. "
from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72


That is not a traffic regulation, that's about metrology. And by the way, I am speaking as a Brit, so native speaker and somewhat conversant with the laws and legal system. As I said, the word "tare" does exist, and is used in certain specific contexts. But in connection with road vehicles, everybody in the UK speaks of Unladen Weight.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-weights-explained


Ok.
Here trucks have small signs on there side, they state the tare weight and gvw. I think these are used to confirm the vehicle is not overloaded when inspected (we have both mobile and stationary testing).
Also tare is used to specify the maximum tare weight of a trailer that inexperienced drivers can use, and that is a road regulation.  It may also be used for other things.
A fairly common term here.

-------------
Further nit picking..
The "Unladen weight" is usually done without fuel but in all other ways ready for the road -i.e. includes spare tyre/s, tools, battery, coolant, oil etc etc. ???
I think some manufactures sales brochures quote figures without some of these to make it appear that they have greater load carrying capabilities.
Again this may vary from place to place around the world.

--------------------
I would be happy with "unladen weight" rather than "empty weight".
As for "maximum" .. I would use "limit" similar to the use of "speed limit". So it would become "unladen weight limit".

I don't think I have ever seen a sign limiting the unladen weight .. it is always a limit on the total weight that the structure is rated for.
So I don't think there is much point in discussing it? At least not from my limited knowledge.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Philip Barnes


On Saturday, 6 July 2019, Warin wrote:

> On 06/07/19 19:46, Colin Smale wrote:
> >
> > On 2019-07-06 10:48, Warin wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/07/19 18:16, Colin Smale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2019-07-06 05:03, Warin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>     On 05/07/19 19:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >>>
> >>>         3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by [hidden email]:
> >>>
> >>>             1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the
> >>>             key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
> >>>
> >>>         Added, with link back to this post
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     Here that would be called "maximum Tare weight". In the UK?
> >>>
> >>> Probably "maximum unladen weight." "Tare" does exist as a word, and
> >>> is frequently used in logistics (empty weight of containers etc) but
> >>> AFAIK not in the context of traffic regulations.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Possibly not where you are.. but
> >>
> >> "registrable light motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is
> >> registrable and has a tare mass that is not greater than 2,794
> >> kilograms."
> >>
> >> From https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2017/451/full
> >>
> >> And also in other traffic legislation in Australia...
> >>
> >> In the UK?
> >>
> >> "(h)the manner in which the tare weight of road vehicles, or of road
> >> vehicles of any particular class or description is to be determined. "
> >> from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72
> >>
> >>
> > That is not a traffic regulation, that's about metrology. And by the
> > way, I am speaking as a Brit, so native speaker and somewhat
> > conversant with the laws and legal system. As I said, the word "tare"
> > does exist, and is used in certain specific contexts. But in
> > connection with road vehicles, everybody in the UK speaks of Unladen
> > Weight.
> >
> > https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-weights-explained
> >
>
> Ok.
> Here trucks have small signs on there side, they state the tare weight
> and gvw. I think these are used to confirm the vehicle is not overloaded
> when inspected (we have both mobile and stationary testing).
> Also tare is used to specify the maximum tare weight of a trailer that
> inexperienced drivers can use, and that is a road regulation. It may
> also be used for other things.
> A fairly common term here.
>
> -------------
> Further nit picking..
> The "Unladen weight" is usually done without fuel but in all other ways
> ready for the road -i.e. includes spare tyre/s, tools, battery, coolant,
> oil etc etc. ???
> I think some manufactures sales brochures quote figures without some of
> these to make it appear that they have greater load carrying capabilities.
> Again this may vary from place to place around the world.
>
> --------------------
> I would be happy with "unladen weight" rather than "empty weight".
> As for "maximum" .. I would use "limit" similar to the use of "speed
> limit". So it would become "unladen weight limit".
>
> I don't think I have ever seen a sign limiting the unladen weight .. it
> is always a limit on the total weight that the structure is rated for.
> So I don't think there is much point in discussing it? At least not from
> my limited knowledge.
>
Unladen weight is used in European countries to apply only to goods vehicles, either 3.5t or 7.5t, and is tagged as hgv=no/destination.

It has nothing to do with structures, it is to prevent heavy goods vehicles taking short cuts through residential areas.

It only apples to goods vehicles, as you need buses to have access.

Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Sailfish device
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Philip Barnes
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 12:26, Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Unladen is certainly the used, and understood, way of expressing such restrictions in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-weights-explained


Off topic, and not your fault, but that is an explanation that isn't entirely free from ambiguity and illogic.

The unladen weight excludes passengers but includes items needed for ordinary operation.  Is
the driver a passenger or an item needed for ordinary operation?  Or both?  Or neither?

It doesn't include the weight of batteries in an electric vehicle.  I can understand excluding
fuel, since a petrol/diesel/hydrogen vehicle may be operated with a tank that's nearly empty
but batteries are a dead weight as much as the chassis is.  What would be far more sensible
and consistent with the exclusion of fuel would be to include the batteries (items needed for
ordinary operation) but to exclude the almost infinitesimally-small extra mass created by charging
the batteries (subtle point of physics: energy, of any kind, has mass).

The law is an ass.  A simplified explanation of the law is a bigger ass.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Colin Smale
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick

On 2019-07-06 12:53, Tobias Zwick wrote:

So "unladen" is the word used in UK legislation? Do you have a link?
 
 
Even if "unladen" is most commonly used in UK, I still find "empty" better because it is easier to understand what it means for non native speakers (simpler word).

In the US, "empty" seems to be most commonly used, as it is also written on the signs while at the same time, the word is not exclusively known/used in the US - unlike mall, freeway, etc.

"maxbogieweight" caused confusion earlier and was misunderstood as synonymous to "maxaxleload" recently. "maxemptyweight" I think does not need documentation to clarify what it stands for, "maxunladenweight" might.
 
It is an intrinsic danger of international projects that words mean different things to different people. Hence the importance of keeping things objective, and recording facts, rather than judgements. It's about what things ARE, not what they are CALLED. It really doesn't matter if the tag uses "unladen" or "empty" or "tare" or indeed "abc001". What is important is that the chosen tag is well-defined, so people can translate the data to what it does (or does not) imply.
 
For example (my definition):
Bogie = composite of 2..n axles sharing a common load-bearing mechanism. Not to be confused with a Close-Coupled Axle Group where each axle has its own independent load-bearing mechanism.
 
With unladen/tare/empty, this is probably not exactly the same as kerb weight (Mass In Running Order), which includes things like fuel in the tank. Or is it "dry weight" without even the weight of the brake fluid? Is it defined as weight, or is it actually legally speaking mass? Which value is most easily accessible for mappers? Which value is most useful to data consumers?
 
In the end, UK naming should usually win, but maybe "empty vehicle weight" does not sound so exotic to British ears?
 
Empty sounds OK to me from a linguistic perspective.
 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Philip Barnes
>Unladen weight is used in European countries to apply only to goods
>vehicles, either 3.5t or 7.5t, and is tagged as hgv=no/destination.

Are you absolutely sure about this?

I am pretty sure myself that hgv are defined differently: as goods vehicles with a "gross vehicle weight rating" (gvwr), a.k.a. "gross vehicle mass" (gvm) or plainly said maximum laden weight above 3.5t

...  and also documented it this way on the Key:hgv page

Tobias

On July 6, 2019 1:38:34 PM GMT+02:00, Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>On Saturday, 6 July 2019, Warin wrote:
>> On 06/07/19 19:46, Colin Smale wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2019-07-06 10:48, Warin wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 06/07/19 18:16, Colin Smale wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2019-07-06 05:03, Warin wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>     On 05/07/19 19:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>         3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by [hidden email]:
>> >>>
>> >>>             1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose
>the
>> >>>             key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself.
>> >>>
>> >>>         Added, with link back to this post
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>     Here that would be called "maximum Tare weight". In the UK?
>> >>>
>> >>> Probably "maximum unladen weight." "Tare" does exist as a word,
>and
>> >>> is frequently used in logistics (empty weight of containers etc)
>but
>> >>> AFAIK not in the context of traffic regulations.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Possibly not where you are.. but
>> >>
>> >> "registrable light motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is
>> >> registrable and has a tare mass that is not greater than 2,794
>> >> kilograms."
>> >>
>> >> From
>https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2017/451/full
>> >>
>> >> And also in other traffic legislation in Australia...
>> >>
>> >> In the UK?
>> >>
>> >> "(h)the manner in which the tare weight of road vehicles, or of
>road
>> >> vehicles of any particular class or description is to be
>determined. "
>> >> from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72
>> >>
>> >>
>> > That is not a traffic regulation, that's about metrology. And by
>the
>> > way, I am speaking as a Brit, so native speaker and somewhat
>> > conversant with the laws and legal system. As I said, the word
>"tare"
>> > does exist, and is used in certain specific contexts. But in
>> > connection with road vehicles, everybody in the UK speaks of
>Unladen
>> > Weight.
>> >
>> > https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-weights-explained
>> >
>>
>> Ok.
>> Here trucks have small signs on there side, they state the tare
>weight
>> and gvw. I think these are used to confirm the vehicle is not
>overloaded
>> when inspected (we have both mobile and stationary testing).
>> Also tare is used to specify the maximum tare weight of a trailer
>that
>> inexperienced drivers can use, and that is a road regulation. It may
>> also be used for other things.
>> A fairly common term here.
>>
>> -------------
>> Further nit picking..
>> The "Unladen weight" is usually done without fuel but in all other
>ways
>> ready for the road -i.e. includes spare tyre/s, tools, battery,
>coolant,
>> oil etc etc. ???
>> I think some manufactures sales brochures quote figures without some
>of
>> these to make it appear that they have greater load carrying
>capabilities.
>> Again this may vary from place to place around the world.
>>
>> --------------------
>> I would be happy with "unladen weight" rather than "empty weight".
>> As for "maximum" .. I would use "limit" similar to the use of "speed
>> limit". So it would become "unladen weight limit".
>>
>> I don't think I have ever seen a sign limiting the unladen weight ..
>it
>> is always a limit on the total weight that the structure is rated
>for.
>> So I don't think there is much point in discussing it? At least not
>from
>> my limited knowledge.
>>
>Unladen weight is used in European countries to apply only to goods
>vehicles, either 3.5t or 7.5t, and is tagged as hgv=no/destination.
>
>It has nothing to do with structures, it is to prevent heavy goods
>vehicles taking short cuts through residential areas.
>
>It only apples to goods vehicles, as you need buses to have access.
>
>Phil (trigpoint)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick


sent from a phone

> On 6. Jul 2019, at 12:53, Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> So "unladen" is the word used in UK legislation? Do you have a link?
> Even if "unladen" is most commonly used in UK, I still find "empty" better because it is easier to understand what it means for non native speakers (simpler word).


to me unladen seems more specific (I am not a native speaker of course), empty could mean more things (seats removed? No gasoline in the tank?) although I agree unladen also leaves it open whether it is with petrol or without.

Ciao, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick


sent from a phone

> On 6. Jul 2019, at 14:00, Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I am pretty sure myself that hgv are defined differently: as goods vehicles with a "gross vehicle weight rating" (gvwr), a.k.a. "gross vehicle mass" (gvm) or plainly said maximum laden weight above 3.5t


+1
no idea how it is regulated in the UK, on the continent it is gross vehicle mass.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
Ok, it seems that "unladen" is somewhat favoured here on the list because it is more precise, more common and conforms with the wording in the (UK) legislation.

I'll change the one mention in the wiki of "maxemptyweight" to "maxunladenweight".

Cheers
Tobias

On 06/07/2019 14:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 6. Jul 2019, at 12:53, Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> So "unladen" is the word used in UK legislation? Do you have a link?
>> Even if "unladen" is most commonly used in UK, I still find "empty" better because it is easier to understand what it means for non native speakers (simpler word).
>
>
> to me unladen seems more specific (I am not a native speaker of course), empty could mean more things (seats removed? No gasoline in the tank?) although I agree unladen also leaves it open whether it is with petrol or without.
>
> Ciao, Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maxweight wiki page changes

Minh Nguyen-2
In reply to this post by Colin Smale
On 2019-07-06 04:49, Colin Smale wrote:

> It is an intrinsic danger of international projects that words mean
> different things to different people. Hence the importance of keeping
> things objective, and recording facts, rather than judgements. It's
> about what things ARE, not what they are CALLED. It really doesn't
> matter if the tag uses "unladen" or "empty" or "tare" or indeed
> "abc001". What is important is that the chosen tag is well-defined, so
> people can translate the data to what it does (or does not) imply.
> For example (my definition):
> Bogie = composite of 2..n axles sharing a common load-bearing mechanism.
> Not to be confused with a Close-Coupled Axle Group where each axle has
> its own independent load-bearing mechanism.
> With unladen/tare/empty, this is probably not exactly the same as kerb
> weight (Mass In Running Order), which includes things like fuel in the
> tank. Or is it "dry weight" without even the weight of the brake fluid?
> Is it defined as weight, or is it actually legally speaking mass? Which
> value is most easily accessible for mappers? Which value is most useful
> to data consumers?

This is an important point. Your average non-British layperson mapping
businesses who happens to come across a weight restriction sign won't
initially know the distinction between an axle and a bogie (guilty as
charged), let alone tare and dry weight, so there's quite a risk of
mistagging. Editor fields with human-readable labels can mitigate this
risk somewhat, but after a modicum of research, I'm still unsure as to
whether the signposted "empty weight" differs from "curb weight".

Personally, as an American, I don't have a problem with calling it
either "empty" or "unladen" weight. I initially confused bogies with
axles on the wiki, owing to "tandem" being much more common here, but I
still find "unladen" to be self-explanatory, if slightly exotic. Maybe
I've spent too much time pondering the maximum airspeed velocity of
certain birds.

Are there any jurisdictions that make a distinction between specific
definitions of "tare", "empty", "curb", or "dry" weight in weight
restrictions? If not, there's no need to overdefine the tag. We already
handwave about the definition of maxweight: does it refer to the weight
of the portion of the vehicle currently on the bridge, or the entire
vehicle? Different jurisdictions probably have differing definitions
while using similar signs. Even the difference between empty and gross
weight is insignificant for most trucks. [1]

To account for empty weight restrictions, a navigation application would
have to ask the trucker their empty weight or perhaps the truck's
make/model/configuration. It seems to me that the more important
consideration is whether the application presents the user with the
correct terminology. Whether the underlying data is based on uniform
definitions internationally would be more important for analysis use
cases, I suppose, but anyone trying to shoehorn the U.S. system of
weight restrictions into a coherent international system is in for a
world of hurt. [1]

[1]
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-621-may-3-2010-gross-vehicle-weight-vs-empty-vehicle-weight
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight#United_States_2

--
[hidden email]


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12