
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Parking bays - missing dimensions</title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1781563</link>
<description></description>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 7 Jun 2026 17:13:05 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Jun 2024 08:00:28 GMT</pubDate>
<copyright>Copyright &#xA9; 2024 Institute of Highway Engineers</copyright>
<atom:link href="https://members.theihe.org/forums/topic_rss.asp?group=214541&amp;id=1781563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link>
<item>
<title>Parking bays - missing dimensions</title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1781563</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1781563</guid>
<description><![CDATA[I've just spotted that Diagrams 1028.4 and 1028.6 (parking bays) in TSRGD Sch 7 Part4 do not specify the length of dashes nor the gaps between them unlike Diagram 1028.5 (taxi bay).

The DfT Working Drawings still specify these dimensions so is this a mistake in TSRGD?
]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:54:36 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1781695</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1781695</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The working drawings pre-date the 2016 TSRGD and haven't been revised. Therefore they are indicative of what is permitted, but don't show all options. It was a deliberate decision in 2016 to make the 1028.4 marking almost totally flexible and difficult to get wrong. The only thing that was changed was that the double lines across the ends of bays in the former diagram 1032 are no longer legal, but contractors still paint them!]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:00:28 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
