Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Joined: 03/05/2003 14:45:49 Posts: 3999 Location: leyland lancs ENGLAND
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:21 am Post subject:
emma ill get back to you at weekend via email if you could sent me your emailaddress _________________ currently using aponia truck navigation on windows phone. Good bye IOS don't let the door hit you on the way out .
Oh the joys of being a courier.
device Lumia 950 xl
As part of my Master's Degree at the University of Leeds, ...
As I understand it, most drivers (who are ultimately held responsible for any bridge strikes ) who are trying to use GPS for bridge avoidance have their own GPS (TomTom or whatever) as employers don't care. The systems you mention are far too expensive for personal use. What I am trying to do is get hold of what should be readily available info (especially given the governments advertised access to information bill) so that it can be added to existing GPS systems.
By the way width, length, weight and grounding risks are actually much more problematic for drivers and access to the information even more difficult to access. _________________ XL Series-30 Western Europe
Broken by TomTom HOME!!!!
Joined: 03/05/2003 14:45:49 Posts: 3999 Location: leyland lancs ENGLAND
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:49 am Post subject:
robin you will not get nav systems with weight limits a the information is to complex for the routing to take into account ie access only, no access, except for access andvthe fact the data changes too quickly for mapproviders, software houses to update accurratly. as for grounding those Bridges that you may ground on are well signed and this would only apply to lowloader drivers.
it would also be a legal nightmare to if you tt for intance said turn left in to an except for access that had recently been changed it would leave the software proider liable for that in formation which is a chance they wont take
bridge heights are a different matter as they change only when the road resurficed and an change must be notified to rail track (i think). _________________ currently using aponia truck navigation on windows phone. Good bye IOS don't let the door hit you on the way out .
Oh the joys of being a courier.
device Lumia 950 xl
robin you will not get nav systems with weight limits a the information is to complex for the routing to take into account ie access only, no access, except for access andvthe fact the data changes too quickly for mapproviders, software houses to update accurratly. as for grounding those Bridges that you may ground on are well signed and this would only apply to lowloader drivers.
it would also be a legal nightmare to if you tt for intance said turn left in to an except for access that had recently been changed it would leave the software proider liable for that in formation which is a chance they wont take
bridge heights are a different matter as they change only when the road resurficed and an change must be notified to rail track (i think).
I do not think that this would either be difficult, or a legal nightmare to implement, or not at least in future versions of any navigation software.
Quite simply, in the way that most software can route you through a particular point, you only need the ability to have an 'avoid point' facility with it being possible to download the co-ordinates in much the same way as POI's are currently.
This information could then be kept much more up to date than any map data could be.
Yes, many, many thanks, but I havn't looked at them yet, frantic week not over yet. _________________ XL Series-30 Western Europe
Broken by TomTom HOME!!!!
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject: Re: "bridge bashing" prevention equipment
robinwalton wrote:
As I understand it, most drivers (who are ultimately held responsible for any bridge strikes) who are trying to use GPS for bridge avoidance have their own GPS (TomTom or whatever) as employers don't care. The systems you mention are far too expensive for personal use. What I am trying to do is get hold of what should be readily available info (especially given the governments advertised access to information bill) so that it can be added to existing GPS systems.
By the way width, length, weight and grounding risks are actually much more problematic for drivers and access to the information even more difficult to access.
Hi, yes I've been following the discussions on how to get hold of this information. I don't know if you've already tried this, but most of the local authorities either list the low-height bridges within their authority on their websites, or are willing to send you out information, so it's worth geting in touch with them. Bridges that aren't maintained by local authorities are usually the responsibility of the Maintaining Agent Contractor for that area (the individual areas are shown on a map on the HA website) - there are 14 areas in England in total (Scotland & Wales are not included). Each MAC has an abnormal loads officer who should be approachable to ask for information on their restricted height (or weight/width etc.) bridges. Roads which will come under a MAC instead of a LA are trunk roads, A-roads, motorways etc.. Whoever is in charge of a bridge, it isn't in their best interest either to have it constantly needing repair after being hit, so they'd probably be glad to hear from you.
The HA has gradually become aware of the increasing problem of bridge bashing - this is why I'm concentrating my work on height - as I'm coming to it from the Structural Maintenance side; & to date there has not been much thought put in to widespread measures to avoid the occurence of bridge bashing, other than painting the bridges yellow! And the costs involved in repairing a damaged bridge are immense!!
The GPS system I mentioned was just an example - but if a system such as this was to be used (costs aside!), then as the company would be being paid to provide accurate data, then it would be much easier to put the responsibility for a strike onto them (which is an issue raised by Robin in a later posting).
But the second system I detailed (an Overheight Detection & Warning System) would be one which put the majority of the responsibility back onto the HA, & would require no cost input from drivers. To what extent do drivers believe that it would be beneficial to them, if these systems were installed before all vulnerable bridges? (They do already exist at very few locations). Or, would a result of this widespread installation be, that at bridges where a warning system did not exist, the bridge would be assumed to be of an adequate height, & the advisory height signs would start being ignored, thus increasing the risk of strikes occuring at these bridges??
Joined: 03/05/2003 14:45:49 Posts: 3999 Location: leyland lancs ENGLAND
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:29 pm Post subject:
hi emma yesi got your pm sorry it went a little crazy at weekend i WILL get back to you hopefully tomorrow or wednesday oh the joys of trampping _________________ currently using aponia truck navigation on windows phone. Good bye IOS don't let the door hit you on the way out .
Oh the joys of being a courier.
device Lumia 950 xl
Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Posts: 2145 Location: Midlands, UK
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:07 pm Post subject:
I have a low bridge poi file on my web site (includes icon and sound file), but it needs a lot more work at this stage, any body who would like to download this file and try it can PM me for the link as it is not on the general web site yet.
I will only be available for PM today Friday 26th & Saturday 27th, no PM will be answered after that date for 10 days.
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:48 pm Post subject:
alix776 wrote:
robin you will not get nav systems with weight limits a the information is to complex for the routing to take into account ie access only, no access, except for access andvthe fact the data changes too quickly for mapproviders, software houses to update accurratly. as for grounding those Bridges that you may ground on are well signed and this would only apply to lowloader drivers.
Where there's a will, there's a way. If people can keep track of several thousand speed cameras then surely it's possible to keep track of low bridges.
The present technology is that main sat nav systems need the entire map database updated when any minor change is made, but once again this could be overcome if they wanted to. The problematic areas could be loaded as custom avoids, for example.
As for through routing vs access, Garmin already have a feature to "Avoid unpaved roads" but if your final destination is via an unpaved road then it will still take you down the uppaved road. So what's to stop them replacing "unpaved road" with height/weight restriction?
Quote:
it would also be a legal nightmare to if you tt for intance said turn left in to an except for access that had recently been changed it would leave the software proider liable for that in formation
I can just see the Police man now. "Ahh yes of course, sir - your sat nav told you to do it. If your sat nav told you to drive off a cliff, would you?" ;) _________________ Gone fishing!
Would the Bridge / Width / Weight information not be held by each local authority? Would the information not be available under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOI). Person(s) in each region could request the data.
Could the amalgameted data not be placed online and allow, through a webpage, criteria to be set, then on-the-fly, create a custom POI file to be downloaded.
E.G: I want a POI data file that shows bridges under 13' or N metres, and weight limits over 17T etc.
Alternatively write a GNU application that downloads the master data file from a web location and then allows you to create POI files off line using the application? The application could be set to check for the most recent data file.
Having sight of a sample POI for each device would allow a POI file to be created specifically for a given device.
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
) who are trying to use GPS for bridge avoidance have their own GPS (TomTom or whatever) as employers don't care. The systems you mention are far too expensive for personal use. 
What I am trying to do is get hold of what should be readily available info (especially given the governments advertised access to information bill) so that it can be added to existing GPS systems. 
it's always the drivers fault. 
