On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:27:38AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

> Why over-complicate it? Just have a GPS that shows routes *without* low 
> bridges, that are recommended for use by buses. Then you can avoid other 
> nasties as well.

And you think bus companies would buy that instead of buying the cheaper
consumer version?  After all, that's what haulage companies do, and
that's why lorries and tourist coaches are always getting stuck in small
villages.

Incidentally, when that happens, walls get demolished, gardens churned
up, hedges destroyed etc, just to remove the lorry.  Why not just cut
the lorry into little pieces?

> And otherwise it's not failsafe (maybe there's a low bridge somewhere 
> that didn't make it into the gazetteer).

That's not failsafe anyway.  What if a low bridge is built over one of
your routes?

-- 
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

Us Germans take our humour very seriously
  -- German cultural attache talking to the Today Programme,
     about the German supposed lack of a sense of humour, 29 Aug 2001

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message , at
> 15:43:26 on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, David Cantrell 
> remarked:
>>> Why over-complicate it? Just have a GPS that shows routes *without*
>>> low bridges, that are recommended for use by buses. Then you can
>>> avoid other nasties as well.
>>
>> And you think bus companies would buy that instead of buying the
>> cheaper consumer version?
>
> This was a choice between two different specialist GPS designs, to
> fix a specific hazard; not a choice between a specialist and a
> consumer edition.
>
>>> And otherwise it's not failsafe (maybe there's a low bridge
>>> somewhere that didn't make it into the gazetteer).
>>
>> That's not failsafe anyway.  What if a low bridge is built over one
>> of your routes?
>
> I'd be a bit surprised if you could get planning permission to build a
> new bridge that's too low for a bus, over an existing street.

I think you could, for a railway.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:08:50 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>Rebuild a bridge to the same height as before - but a brand new low 
>bridge?? What kind of railway would that be, anyway?

I'm wondering if he might be referring to the reinstatement of a
railway with historic rights, e.g. the WHR.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:59:33PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message , at 15:43:26 
> on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, David Cantrell  remarked:
> > That's not failsafe anyway.  What if a low bridge is built over one of
> > your routes?
> I'd be a bit surprised if you could get planning permission to build a 
> new bridge that's too low for a bus, over an existing street.

Possibly not over a street which is a regular bus route used by
double-deckers, but I'd not be at all surprised to see a low bridge go
up over a road that doesn't normally carry any buses at all.  This would
then catch out any database system (not just those that use GPS!) when it
gets used as a diversion, or even worse by a tourist bus.

As always, the solution is for drivers to watch where they're going.

-- 
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

"IMO, the primary historical significance of Unix is that it marks the
time in computer history where CPUs became so cheap that it was possible
to build an operating system without adult supervision."
                         -- Russ Holsclaw in a.f.c

wrote in message 
news:dd25cada-c14b-4dd7-b7e2-aaf23e09b5e5@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 5 Aug, 14:16, David Cantrell  wrote:

> Possibly not over a street which is a regular bus route used by
> double-deckers, but I'd not be at all surprised to see a low bridge go
> up over a road that doesn't normally carry any buses at all. This would
> then catch out any database system (not just those that use GPS!) when it
> gets used as a diversion, or even worse by a tourist bus.

What exactly is a 'Low bridge'?  i.e. what is the minimum height which
will be available under a bridge which does not have a height
restriction marked on it?  I would be surprised if you would be
allowed to build a low bridge over any road now, except possibly under
very exceptional circumstances, is that not the case?

A 'low bridge' has less than 16'6" (5.03m) clearance.

http://tinyurl.com/6zfz49

Anything less should be marked.

Paul S