Proposal for a Roadtype standard.

[Brickblock1]

With the amount of hidden road types being created only for compatibility it seems reasonable to create a standard to minimize it. While the disadvantage of a standard is that it does remove some freedom from the road vehicle author I still think that it would be for the greater good as you would no longer need to make roadsets and vehiclesets explicitly compatible.

The standard also does not make roadsets compatible with each other, however if that would be preferable the standard could be adapted.

The scheme can be found here:

https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/S ... ype_Scheme

[Quast65]

Thank you for starting this up!

Will your proposal eventually also cover trams?

At the moment, I am thinking of 4 types, Non-electric, Electric, 3rd-rail (Metro) and Eyecandy (for example the bicycles in DROP/VELO)
viewtopic.php?t=88306
viewtopic.php?p=1249806#p1249806



Just putting this here to attrackt attention

.

[Brickblock1]

Thanks for the response

Will your proposal eventually also cover trams?

I don't see a huge need for it right now but it would definitively be beneficial in the future.

At the moment, I am thinking of 4 types, Non-electric, Electric, 3rd-rail (Metro) and Eyecandy (for example the bicycles in DROP/VELO)
viewtopic.php?t=88306
viewtopic.php?p=1249806#p1249806

Those all seam like good picks but I would probably add rackrail and cable hauled ones, not to meantion that suspended monorail would have to be included.

[Kruemelchen]

Wow, you've been quicker than me
I had thought of a road type scheme, but I remain unsure, if it went out of hand or not ...

This is my proposal text I prepared:

It has been a couple of years since NRT (New Road Type) has been introduced into OpenTTD. Since then, we saw more and more road type sets pop up. Also road vehicle sets begin to use different road type labels.

This, however, brings us to the exact same problem we had with rail types many many years ago. Then, a standardized scheme for railtype labels has been proposed. Even though not every rail type set or rail vehicle set sticks to the standardized scheme (or equivalents), the overall situation is much improved.

Coming back to road vehicles, to my knowledge there is yet a standardized scheme to be proposed, hence why I created a scheme I wanted to present in this thread.

What are the prerequisites? As of now, there exist a ton of different road type labels used by the different NewGRFs creating roads. However, compatibility is not a big issue, as long as all vehicles are of the label ROAD. Much like RAIL and ELRL regarding Railroads or Tramways.

But what about road vehicle sets authors, who want to create different type of vehicles than simple ROAD?

If there should only be one type of vehicle, this discussion is obviously senseless. But more and more vehicle GRF authors adopt labels for micromanaging vehicles or to introduce different means of transport, i.e. watercraft.

The whole situation leads to compatibility hell. Additionally, hidden road types commonly used for compatibility reasons count towards the 64 road and tram type limit, further narrowing the usability and easy handling of road (vehicle) sets by players.

Hence, why I am proposing a standardized road type scheme for vehicles!

The scheme in short: (sorry for the markup text )

Code: Select all

version 0.2
*meaning*		*label*		*letter*
vehicle	class	[X***]		Public **R**oad vehicle, **I**dustrial road vehicle, **B**icycle, **W**atercraft, **S**ledge
feature			[*X**]		**O**(none), **A**nimal-drawn, **B**uoyant, **D**irt, **F**arming(dirt+slow), **H**overing, **T**all, Overhead-**W**ire-powered(general), **5**50V-powered(overhead), **6**00V-powered(overhead), **7**50V-powered(overhead)
axle weight		[**X*]		**A**(~10t), **B**(~20t), **C**(~40t), **a**(~5t), **b**(~1t)
cargo class		[***X]		**D**elivery, **P**AX, **T**raffic

The vehicle class is the main differentiator between road vehicles and i.e. watercraft. While road vehicles are meant to run on public streets, industrial vehicles are not allowed on public streets. This could be everything from industrial road trains to quarry trucks. Bicycle then is everything meant to run on bicycle lanes, much as watercraft means everything that is meant to run on bodies of water, i.e. canals. Sledges then are meant to run on snow and not on typical roads.

Feature describes additions to differentiate the vehicle types above. Here, authors can decide, which features their vehicle should have. Horse carts would be animal-drawn, 4x4 or 6x6 trucks would be able to run on dirt roads, farming tractors would do that too, but wouldn't be allowed on motorways (much as slow vehicles in general?), whereas buoyant vehicles would refer to amphibious vehicles. Hovering and Tall would refer to hovercraft and sailing boats (or any other tall vehicle which might not be usable on canals or roads with catenary). Last, overhead-wire-powered refers to trolleys which are powered by catenary. Here, specific voltages can be used as well.

Axle weight refers to the weight the road surface needs to support. For bodies of water, it refers to the depth of the vessel in water, which means a light vessel and go over a ford, whereas a deep vessel cannot.

And last, cargo class differentiates the vehicles into delivery, which refers to trucks, pax, which refers to buses (which then are allowed on bus lanes or even pedestrian zones) and traffic, which refers to cars which can also be used by Traffic AIs, but also as taxis (and which would be allowed on taxiways).

This would lead to the following label tree:

Code: Select all

version 0.2
*1*		*2*		*3*		*4*		*type of vehicle*			*special type of road*
R		O		A		D		truck						road
						P		bus							bus lane
				B		D		heavy load truck			supported road
						I		heavy on-site truck			supported ISR
				C		D		special transport			not in city centres
				a		D		light truck					light road
						P		minibus						light road
						T		taxi						taxi lane
		A		A		D		horse cart					dirt road
						P		horse carriage				dirt road
						T		horse courier				dirt road
		B		A		D		amphibious truck			waterway
						P		amphibious bus				waterway
						T		amphibious taxi				waterway
		D		A		D		off-road truck				supported dirt road
				a		D		off-road light truck		dirt road
						P		off-road bus				dirt road
						T		jeep						dirt road
		F		A		D		farming tractor				not on motorways
				a		D		light farming tractor		not on motorways
				b		D		tracked tractor				not on motorways
		H		A		P		hoverbus					road
		W		A		D		trolley truck				wired road
						P		trolley bus					wired road
		5		A		D		trolley truck				550V-wired road
						P		trolley bus					550V-wired road
		6		A		D		trolley truck				600V-wired road
						P		trolley bus					600V-wired road
		7		A		D		trolley truck				750V-wired road
						P		trolley bus					750V-wired road
I		O		A		D		industrial truck			ISR
				B		D		heavy industrial truck		supported ISR
		A		A		D		forestry horse				forestry road
		W		A		D		industrial trolley truck	wired ISR
				B		D		heavy ind. trolley truck	wired supported ISR
B		O		a		D		delivery bike				bicycle lane
						P		riksha						pedestrian zone
						T		bicycle						bicycle lane
W		O		A		D		freighter					waterway
				B		D		deep water freighter		seaway
						P		ferry						waterway
				a		D		light water freighter		waterway
						P		gondola						waterway
						T		boat						waterway
		A		A		D		towed barque				waterway with towway
		B		A		D		propeller boat				swamp
		D		A		D		amphibious off-road truck	dirt road
						P		amphibious off-road bus		dirt road
						T		amphibious jeep				dirt road
		H		A		P		hovercraft					flat terrain
		W		A		P		trolley ferry				wired waterway
		T		A		D		sailing ship				no wires
		T		B		D		deep water sailing ship		no wires
S		O		A		D		motor sledge				snow
						P		motor sledge bus			snow
		A		A		D		dog sledge					snow
		B		A		P		propeller sledge bus		snow

What is your opinion about this?
Do you think, we need every differentiation proposed? Or would you introduce further letters to differentiate vehicles further?
Or would you rather have a different categorization of the four letters?

... or do you think this whole discussion is mute, and you prefer an easier scheme like ROAD, BOAT, SLOW, SNOW, DIRT, ... you name it

Please let me know your opinions

PS: the whole thing can be ported to trams as well:

[+] Spoiler

Code: Select all

version 0.1

### label composition
*meaning*		*label*		*letter*
gauge			[X***]		**S**tandard(1435mm), **M**etre(1000mm), **B**road(1524mm), **N**arrow(900mm)
feature			[*X**]		**O**(none), **A**nimal-drawn, **C**able-drawn, **G**round-level-powered, **H**overing, Overhead-**W**ire-powered, **5**50V-powered(overhead), **6**00V-powered(overhead), **7**50V-powered(overhead), **1**500V-powered(overhead)
axle weight		[**X*]		**A**(tram), **B**(light-rail)
cargo class		[***X]		**D**elivery, **P**AX

### label tree
*1*		*2*		*3*		*4*		*type of vehicle*			*special type of rail*
S		O		A		D		cargo tram					rail
						P		tram						rail
		A		A		D		cargo horse tram			rail
						P		horse tram					rail
		C		A		P		cable car					cable rail
		G		A		D		ground-powered cargo tram	third rail
						P		ground-powered tram			third rail
		H		A		P		suspended tram				suspended rail
				B		P		suspended light rail		suspended rail
		W		A		D		electrified cargo tram		wired rail
						P		electrified tram			wired rail
		5		A		D		electrified cargo tram		550V wired rail
						P		electrified tram			550V wired rail
		6		A		D		electrified cargo tram		600V wired rail
						P		electrified tram			600V wired rail
		7		A		D		electrified cargo tram		750V wired rail
						P		electrified tram			750V wired rail
				B		P		electrified light rail		750V wired rail
		1		B		P		electrified light rail		1500V wired rail
M		similar
B		similar
N		similar

... my two cents:
I'm not sure whether we really need all the differentiations. Personally, I think we need a light scheme to enhance compatibility, without being too cumbersome to actually implement by road/vehicle type authors ...

I just thought, it would be good for me to throw my ideas/thoughts into the arena

[Kruemelchen]

The proposal can be found here:

https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/U ... bel_Scheme

Thank you for thinking up a scheme
I think it's very straight forward!

-----------------------------------------

I am currently thinking about how to make road type sets compatible with each other at the same time as making them compatible with vehicles.
The problem is, we have lots of eyecandy road types, as well as situations, when a general road type set and a specialised road type set are in use together

The technical background is: Vehicles of a certain roadtype A, which is not present in the game, will be changed to the first roadtype (B), which is compatible with the vehicle-roadtype (it is defined in the alternative_roadtype_list). The new roadtype B (the vehicle is now the same type as the road) will only be compatible with roadtypes (C, ...), that are defined in the powered_roadtype_list of the roadtype B. This generally blocks the usage of different road type sets.

The same goes with the case, if the road type set uses the standardised roadtype-labels, but other road type sets aren't.

So ideally, vehicles and roads would use the same labels.

However, as vehicles have special features, such as being amphibious, there need to be special labels, such as the ones brickblock1 (and me) have proposed.

These labels can be remapped to the roadtypes of a road set as well. However, the same compatibility issue as described above applies.

What does make a change, is the use of hidden standardised vehicle roadtypes as a compatibility layer. In this scenario, road sets can use any label they want, as long as they add their roads to the "powered_roadtype_list" of the hidden roadtypes (as is needed for compatibility with ROAD vehicles). The downside is, this approach blocks a certain amount of usable road/tram type slots (which would speak for a lightweight solution).

--------------------------------

... I thought, maybe we can combine all the ideas in a simple scheme
... And at the same time, I think, we should think roadtype and tramtype together. Because bicycle lanes might move over to tramtype, and in the end it's easier for grf authors to remember, if both are similar.

[Brickblock1]

Wow, you've been quicker than me
I had thought of a road type scheme, but I remain unsure, if it went out of hand or not ...

The scheme in short: (sorry for the markup text )

Code: Select all

version 0.2
*meaning*		*label*		*letter*
vehicle	class	[X***]		Public **R**oad vehicle, **I**dustrial road vehicle, **B**icycle, **W**atercraft, **S**ledge
feature			[*X**]		**O**(none), **A**nimal-drawn, **B**uoyant, **D**irt, **F**arming(dirt+slow), **H**overing, **T**all, Overhead-**W**ire-powered(general), **5**50V-powered(overhead), **6**00V-powered(overhead), **7**50V-powered(overhead)
axle weight		[**X*]		**A**(~10t), **B**(~20t), **C**(~40t), **a**(~5t), **b**(~1t)
cargo class		[***X]		**D**elivery, **P**AX, **T**raffic

The vehicle class is the main differentiator between road vehicles and i.e. watercraft. While road vehicles are meant to run on public streets, industrial vehicles are not allowed on public streets. This could be everything from industrial road trains to quarry trucks. Bicycle then is everything meant to run on bicycle lanes, much as watercraft means everything that is meant to run on bodies of water, i.e. canals. Sledges then are meant to run on snow and not on typical roads.

Feature describes additions to differentiate the vehicle types above. Here, authors can decide, which features their vehicle should have. Horse carts would be animal-drawn, 4x4 or 6x6 trucks would be able to run on dirt roads, farming tractors would do that too, but wouldn't be allowed on motorways (much as slow vehicles in general?), whereas buoyant vehicles would refer to amphibious vehicles. Hovering and Tall would refer to hovercraft and sailing boats (or any other tall vehicle which might not be usable on canals or roads with catenary). Last, overhead-wire-powered refers to trolleys which are powered by catenary. Here, specific voltages can be used as well.

Axle weight refers to the weight the road surface needs to support. For bodies of water, it refers to the depth of the vessel in water, which means a light vessel and go over a ford, whereas a deep vessel cannot.

And last, cargo class differentiates the vehicles into delivery, which refers to trucks, pax, which refers to buses (which then are allowed on bus lanes or even pedestrian zones) and traffic, which refers to cars which can also be used by Traffic AIs, but also as taxis (and which would be allowed on taxiways).

This would lead to the following label tree:

Code: Select all

version 0.2
*1*		*2*		*3*		*4*		*type of vehicle*			*special type of road*
R		O		A		D		truck						road
						P		bus							bus lane
				B		D		heavy load truck			supported road
						I		heavy on-site truck			supported ISR
				C		D		special transport			not in city centres
				a		D		light truck					light road
						P		minibus						light road
						T		taxi						taxi lane
		A		A		D		horse cart					dirt road
						P		horse carriage				dirt road
						T		horse courier				dirt road
		B		A		D		amphibious truck			waterway
						P		amphibious bus				waterway
						T		amphibious taxi				waterway
		D		A		D		off-road truck				supported dirt road
				a		D		off-road light truck		dirt road
						P		off-road bus				dirt road
						T		jeep						dirt road
		F		A		D		farming tractor				not on motorways
				a		D		light farming tractor		not on motorways
				b		D		tracked tractor				not on motorways
		H		A		P		hoverbus					road
		W		A		D		trolley truck				wired road
						P		trolley bus					wired road
		5		A		D		trolley truck				550V-wired road
						P		trolley bus					550V-wired road
		6		A		D		trolley truck				600V-wired road
						P		trolley bus					600V-wired road
		7		A		D		trolley truck				750V-wired road
						P		trolley bus					750V-wired road
I		O		A		D		industrial truck			ISR
				B		D		heavy industrial truck		supported ISR
		A		A		D		forestry horse				forestry road
		W		A		D		industrial trolley truck	wired ISR
				B		D		heavy ind. trolley truck	wired supported ISR
B		O		a		D		delivery bike				bicycle lane
						P		riksha						pedestrian zone
						T		bicycle						bicycle lane
W		O		A		D		freighter					waterway
				B		D		deep water freighter		seaway
						P		ferry						waterway
				a		D		light water freighter		waterway
						P		gondola						waterway
						T		boat						waterway
		A		A		D		towed barque				waterway with towway
		B		A		D		propeller boat				swamp
		D		A		D		amphibious off-road truck	dirt road
						P		amphibious off-road bus		dirt road
						T		amphibious jeep				dirt road
		H		A		P		hovercraft					flat terrain
		W		A		P		trolley ferry				wired waterway
		T		A		D		sailing ship				no wires
		T		B		D		deep water sailing ship		no wires
S		O		A		D		motor sledge				snow
						P		motor sledge bus			snow
		A		A		D		dog sledge					snow
		B		A		P		propeller sledge bus		snow

What is your opinion about this?
Do you think, we need every differentiation proposed? Or would you introduce further letters to differentiate vehicles further?
Or would you rather have a different categorization of the four letters?

... or do you think this whole discussion is mute, and you prefer an easier scheme like ROAD, BOAT, SLOW, SNOW, DIRT, ... you name it

Please let me know your opinions

PS: the whole thing can be ported to trams as well:

[+] Spoiler

Code: Select all

version 0.1

### label composition
*meaning*		*label*		*letter*
gauge			[X***]		**S**tandard(1435mm), **M**etre(1000mm), **B**road(1524mm), **N**arrow(900mm)
feature			[*X**]		**O**(none), **A**nimal-drawn, **C**able-drawn, **G**round-level-powered, **H**overing, Overhead-**W**ire-powered, **5**50V-powered(overhead), **6**00V-powered(overhead), **7**50V-powered(overhead), **1**500V-powered(overhead)
axle weight		[**X*]		**A**(tram), **B**(light-rail)
cargo class		[***X]		**D**elivery, **P**AX

### label tree
*1*		*2*		*3*		*4*		*type of vehicle*			*special type of rail*
S		O		A		D		cargo tram					rail
						P		tram						rail
		A		A		D		cargo horse tram			rail
						P		horse tram					rail
		C		A		P		cable car					cable rail
		G		A		D		ground-powered cargo tram	third rail
						P		ground-powered tram			third rail
		H		A		P		suspended tram				suspended rail
				B		P		suspended light rail		suspended rail
		W		A		D		electrified cargo tram		wired rail
						P		electrified tram			wired rail
		5		A		D		electrified cargo tram		550V wired rail
						P		electrified tram			550V wired rail
		6		A		D		electrified cargo tram		600V wired rail
						P		electrified tram			600V wired rail
		7		A		D		electrified cargo tram		750V wired rail
						P		electrified tram			750V wired rail
				B		P		electrified light rail		750V wired rail
		1		B		P		electrified light rail		1500V wired rail
M		similar
B		similar
N		similar

... my two cents:
I'm not sure whether we really need all the differentiations. Personally, I think we need a light scheme to enhance compatibility, without being too cumbersome to actually implement by road/vehicle type authors ...

I just thought, it would be good for me to throw my ideas/thoughts into the arena

It is always good to have multible options to consider, however I think you might have went overboard on the differentiation. I also have a hard time trying to figure out how this would be implemented by a roadset. I completly agree with you that a light scheme would increase compatibility.

Some of the ideas from your proposal are defenetivly worth considering. I especally liked the idea of having bus and truck specific roads. I think it should be possible to combine them with my proposal similar to how bikes are done. I had also considered diferent voltages for electrification but didn't feel like it would add much in terms of gameplay, while only making the standard more complex.

[Kruemelchen]

It is always good to have multible options to consider, however I think you might have went overboard on the differentiation. I also have a hard time trying to figure out how this would be implemented by a roadset. I completly agree with you that a light scheme would increase compatibility.

That are the main reasons, why I haven't made the initiative

My "scheme" went way overboard and did only think of vehicle types. It would only make sense as a "hidden road type" compatibility scheme, and for such, it reserves way too many road types anyway

Some of the ideas from your proposal are defenetivly worth considering. I especally liked the idea of having bus and truck specific roads. I think it should be possible to combine them with my proposal similar to how bikes are done. I had also considered diferent voltages for electrification but didn't feel like it would add much in terms of gameplay, while only making the standard more complex.

It would be great, if we could combine our ideas

Well, maybe in the future, tram set authors want to go for different voltages, but since we haven't seen that used much for trains, it wouldn't make much sense to do it for trams.

It's similar with gauge, really, even though I like the idea of having different tram gauges

[Auge]

Hello

It would be great, if we could combine our ideas

Yes, this would be great. Having a common road naming scheme is IMHO an urgent necessity. for maing road type sets compatible with road vehicle sets but also for making vehicle sets compatible with road types.

Well, maybe in the future, tram set authors want to go for different voltages, but since we haven't seen that used much for trains, it wouldn't make much sense to do it for trams.

It's similar with gauge, really, even though I like the idea of having different tram gauges

For my own set I need at least tram track "generations" for different maximum speeds, electrified and non electrified tracks and tracks for use inside a town and outside towns. When I started to implement tram tracks for my set, I tried to follow the sparse code examples I found. It ended in naming the types with abbrevations, that are not compatible with any vehicle set. Thatswhy it is IMHO absolutely necessary, that the roadtype standard does include schemes for "normal" roads, electrified roads (trolley wired roads) and also for tram track types.

[edit]:

From the initial proposal:

Tier class [**X*]

There are three possible characters here:

A Off-road/rough terrain
B Regular city/county road
C Highway/Motorway

For better understanding of option B. What does "regular city/county road" as description of one single road class mean? I would declare them as different classes because a city road is the/one road for use inside a town (with a common speed limit, town can build houses beside the road and so on) while I would describe county roads as road between towns with a higher speed limit and without the ability to build houses beside the road but at the same time being no motorway, highway or Autobahn. Do I misunderstand the concept?

Tschö, Auge

[Eddi]

From the initial proposal:

Tier class [**X*]

There are three possible characters here:

A Off-road/rough terrain
B Regular city/county road
C Highway/Motorway

For better understanding of option B. What does "regular city/county road" as description of one single road class mean?

i think you need to view this from the angle of "which vehicle can use this road"? tractors? horses? cars? trucks?

[Brickblock1]

From the initial proposal:

Tier class [**X*]

There are three possible characters here:

A Off-road/rough terrain
B Regular city/county road
C Highway/Motorway

For better understanding of option B. What does "regular city/county road" as description of one single road class mean? I would declare them as different classes because a city road is the/one road for use inside a town (with a common speed limit, town can build houses beside the road and so on) while I would describe county roads as road between towns with a higher speed limit and without the ability to build houses beside the road but at the same time being no motorway, highway or Autobahn. Do I misunderstand the concept?

Tschö, Auge

I think you might have misunderstood as the point of the Tier class isn't to differentiate between roads within a roadtype grf but rather to make it possible for vehicle sets to chose what types of road their vehicles are able to travel on. To differentiate between city and country roads the second position should be used as the roads would have the same caracteristics for any road vehicle even if the game might treat them differently. This is also how other eyecandy roads would be implemented.

[Kruemelchen]

I tried to combine both schemes, and also incorporated tram:
https://www.tt-wiki.net/wiki/User:Kruemelchen

Let me know, what you think

[Brickblock1]

Over all I think this is an improved version, however I don't personally see the appeal of the Slow vehicle class as it can be Accomplished with the Terrain / Stability. Personally I also don't think that four layers of Terrain / Stability is neccesary but more feedback on this would be beneficial. I would also move the classes to where they were before inorder for it to match the railtype standard better.

I also think that buses fit better in in the Surface / Type since they behave similarly to bikes. And having vehicles on pedestrian zones seams like it would cause issues for drawing as there are multible examples of zones where vehicles simply can't operate.

I think that making two standards one for trams and one for trucks and busses makes more sense but having them on the same page would probably be preferred. If we aren't spliting it we should at least rename the Bus Letter to P for public transit or passengeres.

[Auge]

Hello

I also think that buses fit better in in the Surface / Type since they behave similarly to bikes. And having vehicles on pedestrian zones seams like it would cause issues for drawing as there are multible examples of zones where vehicles simply can't operate.

The first vehicles for pedestrian zones, that comes into my mind are those city tour trains, drawn by locomotive looking cars like this one in Quedlinburg Germany. Not to speak about tramwy lines in pedestrian zones like in Freiburg and Berlin Alexanderplatz (both in Germany).

Tschö, Auge

[Quast65]

Starting to look good people!

Let me know, what you think

Does Ground-powered energy source for example mean 3rd rail for trams (So metro's)?

vehicles on pedestrian zones

Please keep in mind that vehicles dont have to be RV's
This is an example of the "trams" I have made for my invisible tramtracks:

Example795.png (37.86 KiB) Viewed 20383 times

The Delivery Guy, MD-11F and Flock of Sheep would transport cargo's, the others PAX.

[Kruemelchen]

Over all I think this is an improved version, however I don't personally see the appeal of the Slow vehicle class as it can be Accomplished with the Terrain / Stability. Personally I also don't think that four layers of Terrain / Stability is neccesary but more feedback on this would be beneficial. I would also move the classes to where they were before inorder for it to match the railtype standard better.

I also think that buses fit better in in the Surface / Type since they behave similarly to bikes. And having vehicles on pedestrian zones seams like it would cause issues for drawing as there are multible examples of zones where vehicles simply can't operate.

I think that making two standards one for trams and one for trucks and busses makes more sense but having them on the same page would probably be preferred. If we aren't spliting it we should at least rename the Bus Letter to P for public transit or passengeres.

Thank you These are very valid points!

About the pedestrian zone: Of course it's up to the road set creator to decide, what kind of vehicles can go on what type of "eyecandy" road type. In lots of pedestrian zones, however, a limited variety of vehicles might be wanted, for end delivery or pure eyecandy or as "tourist attraction". These cannot only be pedestrians, but also horse carriages or the tourist "road trains" Auge has mentioned. I think, it is viable to have a standard for this purpose. It only needs to be supported by sets with pedestrian zones, because vehicles of other types wouldn't be allowed there anyway.

Does Ground-powered energy source for example mean 3rd rail for trams (So metro's)?

Well, I think 3rd rail should be "3" like in the rail type scheme
But yes, I think Ground-powered would basically refer to electrification without overhead-lines, as it will probably be used more and more in the future. So it's mainly an option for futuristic trams, I think.
See this: Ground-level power supply

Note, that here many more options are viable, like C for cable cars etc. It all stands and falls with tram sets going for these options.

Flock of Sheep

I love the sheep!

[Brickblock1]

The issue with pedestrian zones is that allowing road vehicles on them would possibly lead to pedestrians coded as vehicles would wander on to regular streets. Maybe adding a "living street" as an inbetween would be helpfull. Such a street would allow regular vehicles and pedestrians and vehicles coded for it would work on pedestrian zone and regular roads.


Another option would be to have such vehicles unable to leave the pedestrain zone which might be preferable as it decreases the amount of surfaces which is already quite a lot.

[Captain Rand]

This thread has been very interesting to read. I hope you guys manage to agree on some sort of standard. The proposals so far look really good.
One thing that's put me off using roadtypes so far is wading through compatibility issues (another is speed limits, which I don't like - except maybe on dirt/unmade roads). So I just tend to use default roads.
I've long wished to create a road set (and a rail set, but that's a different discussion), and if I can ever get my head 'round the coding I'll give it a serious try! Having a standard scheme would really help.
With that in mind may I propose another roadtype?
Guided Busways [Gxxx]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus This would mainly refer to kerb guidance, although magnetic and optical guidance exists.
The optically guided systems have been referred to as "trackless trams" so that might work as a tramtype. [Oxxx] perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomou ... id_Transit

......... I think Ground-powered would basically refer to electrification without overhead-lines, as it will probably be used more and more in the future. So it's mainly an option for futuristic trams, I think.
See this: Ground-level power supply

(The italics are mine.)
Thanks for the link, I learned something new! It raises a question though:- As a tramtype, would this include the old conduit current collection system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduit_c ... collection? Or would you consider that to be 3rd rail? Or perhaps an entirely different tramtype?

One last thing. @Kruemelchen, In your proposal you list Energy [xxxN] as "none". Shouldn't that be "Internal"?
I know, I know. I'm being pedantic. It's just that "none" gives me the impression that the vehicle is just a trailer!
It was just a thought. (Keep it as [xxxN] though!)

Great work guys!

Pete.

[Brickblock1]

This thread has been very interesting to read. I hope you guys manage to agree on some sort of standard. The proposals so far look really good.
One thing that's put me off using roadtypes so far is wading through compatibility issues (another is speed limits, which I don't like - except maybe on dirt/unmade roads). So I just tend to use default roads.
I've long wished to create a road set (and a rail set, but that's a different discussion), and if I can ever get my head 'round the coding I'll give it a serious try! Having a standard scheme would really help.
With that in mind may I propose another roadtype?
Guided Busways [Gxxx]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus This would mainly refer to kerb guidance, although magnetic and optical guidance exists.
The optically guided systems have been referred to as "trackless trams" so that might work as a tramtype. [Oxxx] perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomou ... id_Transit

To me the guided busways are very similar to a regular buslane and therefore wouldn't add much while making it harder to combine roadsets. If implemented I think that it should fallback to regular buslanes (and after that to roads).

[Oxxx] Makes more sense imo as it doesn't share the same issues of complexity.

One last thing. @Kruemelchen, In your proposal you list Energy [xxxN] as "none". Shouldn't that be "Internal"?
I know, I know. I'm being pedantic. It's just that "none" gives me the impression that the vehicle is just a trailer!
It was just a thought. (Keep it as [xxxN] though!)

If you look at it from the roadtype's prespective it makes more sense as the road has no electrification infrastructure.

[Brickblock1]

I have worked a bit more on it, mostly adding whether roads or vehicles should be the ones enabling fallbacks.

https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/U ... rsion_5.29

Make sure to read version 5 and not the original.

[Captain Rand]

To me the guided busways are very similar to a regular buslane and therefore wouldn't add much while making it harder to combine roadsets. If implemented I think that it should fallback to regular buslanes (and after that to roads).

It's true that buslanes and guided busways are similar, and kerb guided busses can and do drive on normal roads. You're right about the fallbacks too.. However, Bus lanes aren't exclusively for busses. In the UK at least they're also used by Taxis, Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade and (I think, not 100% sure) Bicycles. None of those would be on a (kerb) guided busway.
All these vehicles already exist in GRF form, although not (yet) coded for roadtypes.
Optically and magnetically guided busways are a different matter, being almost identical to a tramline (as I said - trackless trams) and I agree, would probably add very little to the game.The option is there though.

And, imho, a guided busway would add much more to a game than two virually identical looking roads that are essentially the same roadtype, but with speed limts of, say 30MPH and 40MPH, which also already exists in GRF form. To me that's a waste of valuable roadtype slots and that makes it harder to combine roadsets. Personally I don't see the point, but others do and enjoy that style of play.
It all depends on your personal taste and how you like to play the game. That's one of OTTD's greatest strengths - choice.

Lets add the "G" so it's there ready for someone to use.

EDIT: Our posts crossed, I see you added "Trackless Trams"

EDIT 2: Just so we're clear, Guided Busways should be a roadtype, not tram.

Pete.