Talk:Key:maxheight
Contents |
Physical restriction instead of legal restriction
I have made a proposal for physical height restrictions instead of legal ones. As I have written on the proposal and on the mailing list, many countries have different signs for the two. --Skippern 01:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone recently changed the definition of maxheight to be for a specifically "legal" height limit, which was not the case in the past (e.g. it was frequently recommended for use on ways passing under bridges or trees, which is a physical height limit, not legal). Therefore I would recommend reverting the definition of maxheight to a height limit in general, and if more specific information is available, specifying the kind of limit with either maxheight:legal or maxheight:physical. --Waldo000000 23:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- "... which can be either a physical or legal limit, or the minimum of those, or both". Alv 23:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the user doing the edit did that in response to his opinions of my proposal. IMO it is wrong to start edit tags in the middle of a proposal process. --Skippern 01:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This page + legal + physical
This page should stay as it is, as it will not alter the meaning of things already tagged, the two other tags for legal and physical maxheight are still not supported by rendering and routing, so atleast for now they should be used together with maxheight. --Skippern 16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just for the record (this is being discussed in enough places already): I disagree with that suggestion. Instead we should
- keep maxheight for legal restrictions
- use maxheight:physical for physical restrictions
- not use maxheight:legal at all. --Tordanik 01:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Non-legal usages of maxheight
According to tagwatch there are about 100 usages of maxheight in Norway, they are marked by triangular warning signs and not circular restriction signs. I think the same applies for Sweden and Denmark also, another 100 or so usages. I couldn't get any information about usages in Brazil, but both legal and physical restrictions are used, I have tagged all height restrictions whether physical or legal with maxheight and maxheight:* - if anybody from other countries can add in on the usages, than it is easier to see how widespread non-legal usage of the tag really is. --Skippern 01:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Norway have no triangular maxheight signs, just round. UK have triangular signs. Gnonthgol 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tagwatch shows 157 uses in Finland, out of which I know about 10% to be unposted and roughly measured (cycleway!) limits or from square signs denoting physical limits. There could more in other cities. Alv 10:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Removable barriers inflicting maxheight restriction
In Ireland (and probably in other places), there are quite a few parking lots etc., that have a barrier enforcing a height restriction. This is not because there isn't the height available, but more to prevent trucks, big vans, campers etc. from entering the area. These barriers can be opened to let bigger vehicles in, if need to be, but you'd need to contact somebody who has a key.
I'd propose to use something like maxheight:barrier=removable or the likes, to indicate it can be organised to get access with vehicles higher than the restricition posted. Not sure, if that's a good idea. Marlow 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- How about adding a tag removable=yes (or something similar) to the barrier? A tag like that could be used for all barriers, regardless of the exact limits enforced by the barrier - height limits, width limits, vehicle class limits ... --Tordanik 05:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is no barrier mapped, because there is no barrier. Well, there is a barrier that enforces the height-restriction, but everyone that doesn't exceed the height-restriction can enter freely and there is no type of barrier in the list (of the documented ones), that would fit that description. Marlow 10:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
