Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Paul Johnson
On 11/19/2010 06:20 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Richard Welty > wrote: >> On 11/19/10 1:25 PM, j...@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 roa

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Nathan Edgars II
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 11/19/10 1:25 PM, j...@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 forbi

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Richard Welty
On 11/19/10 2:47 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On 11/19/2010 07:40 AM, Richard Welty wrote: also truck prohibitions are not intended to prevent lawn services, delivery services (UPS, Fedex, the guy with the new refrigerator) and the like from carrying out normal business. This is true only if the "Ex

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Richard Welty
On 11/19/10 1:25 PM, j...@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

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/11/19 Pieren : >> The hgv-class is defined for vehicles over 3.5 t, if your legislation >> has different weight limits I'd suggest to introduce a different >> value/key and document that on the access-page in the wiki. >> > > No, why ? If the min/max weight is different, then improve the "Heav

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Paul Johnson
On 11/19/2010 07:40 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > also truck prohibitions are not > intended to prevent > lawn services, delivery services (UPS, Fedex, the guy with the new > refrigerator) and > the like from carrying out normal business. This is true only if the "Except Local Deliveries" or similar

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread john
turn around. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US From :mailto:ascho...@gmail.com Date :Fri Nov 19 11:25:38 America/Chicago 2010 On 19 Nov 2010, at 8:58 , Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: &

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Apollinaris Schoell
On 19 Nov 2010, at 8:58 , Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > The hgv-class is defined for vehicles over 3.5 t, if your legislation > has different weight limits I'd suggest to introduce a different > value/key and document that on the access-page

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Pieren
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > The hgv-class is defined for vehicles over 3.5 t, if your legislation > has different weight limits I'd suggest to introduce a different > value/key and document that on the access-page in the wiki. > > No, why ? If the min/max weigh

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/11/19 SomeoneElse : > From memory in the Western US I've seen "no trucks" and then in smaller > writing "over 6 tons" or similar.  Some kind of note about what the local > rules are likely to be (or something explicit, if it's explicit).  I'm sure > other people can suggest how they'd tag max

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Richard Mann
HGV = Heavy Goods Vehicle. It seems to be broadly identical (give or take a couple of tons/tonnes) with a US "truck" so hgv=destination (or hgv=no) would seem to be correct Feel free to add a note on the wiki that hgv is en-gb for "truck" Or feel free to use truck=destination (or truck=no), and

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Nathan Edgars II
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > what are people doing for this? the truck oriented access tags in the > wiki are oriented towards UK legal categories whereas i'm basically > looking at a simple sign that says "no trucks". the wiki would have > me use Another problem is tha

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread SomeoneElse
On 19/11/2010 13:40, Richard Welty wrote: On 11/19/10 8:27 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: It might seem a silly question, but what's a truck? You're correct that HGV in the UK has a specific legal meaning*, but does "truck" have one in the US? If it doesn't, would something like a Ford F-series coun

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Richard Welty
On 11/19/10 8:27 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: It might seem a silly question, but what's a truck? You're correct that HGV in the UK has a specific legal meaning*, but does "truck" have one in the US? If it doesn't, would something like a Ford F-series count? What something like an El Camino? th

Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread SomeoneElse
It might seem a silly question, but what's a truck? You're correct that HGV in the UK has a specific legal meaning*, but does "truck" have one in the US? If it doesn't, would something like a Ford F-series count? What something like an El Camino? Cheers, Andy * Westminster Council via Goo

[Tagging] tagging no truck access in US

2010-11-19 Thread Richard Welty
what are people doing for this? the truck oriented access tags in the wiki are oriented towards UK legal categories whereas i'm basically looking at a simple sign that says "no trucks". the wiki would have me use goods=no hgv=no whereas truck=no seems like a logical extension of the current ac