Proposal for a Roadtype standard.

[Brickblock1]

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"

Pete.

I'll add it now it shouldn't make things much harder tbh

[Kruemelchen]

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.

You can draw and code pedestrians, so that they walk on the sidewalk and do not collide with traffic (while in pedestrian zones, they would change graphics and leave the sidewalk). Ideally, these would be of a type of their own. However, I think they could be a subcategory of ZAAN, or the grf author creates two different "vehicles" for pedestrians of the street (sidewalk) and pedestrians in pedestrian zones. They are pure eyecandy, so it wouldn't add any functionality to the game to have a special type.

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

I have a question about these fallbacks. How do you think, vehicle set authors should code these fallbacks? I have no idea, how this could be done. To my knowledge, fallbacks have to be put into the "alternative_roadtype_list" of a roadtype. (It means, vehicles of these alternative types will change to the roadtype, defining the "alternative_roadtype_list".

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?

Are there any other 3rd rail systems for trams? I'd say it's easiest to just consider these a 3rd rail.

The problem with realism is, that it can get really complicated. I think it's best to think of a standard scheme as a layer of abstraction, which groups together certain types of vehicles. This means, we have to abstract things a bit, and not give every possibility their own label. With more grf authors adopting the scheme, I'm sure, there will be new things to add, we just haven't thought yet, or thought, was not necessary.

[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.

You can draw and code pedestrians, so that they walk on the sidewalk and do not collide with traffic (while in pedestrian zones, they would change graphics and leave the sidewalk). Ideally, these would be of a type of their own. However, I think they could be a subcategory of ZAAN, or the grf author creates two different "vehicles" for pedestrians of the street (sidewalk) and pedestrians in pedestrian zones. They are pure eyecandy, so it wouldn't add any functionality to the game to have a special type.

I think that the secound option here is preferable as it would make a simpler standard.

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

I have a question about these fallbacks. How do you think, vehicle set authors should code these fallbacks? I have no idea, how this could be done. To my knowledge, fallbacks have to be put into the "alternative_roadtype_list" of a roadtype. (It means, vehicles of these alternative types will change to the roadtype, defining the "alternative_roadtype_list".

Vehicle sets can implement fallbacks with the roadtype/tramtypetable.
https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/N ... mtypetable

https://wiki.openttd.org/en/Archive/Dev ... -fallbacks

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?

Are there any other 3rd rail systems for trams? I'd say it's easiest to just consider these a 3rd rail.

The problem with realism is, that it can get really complicated. I think it's best to think of a standard scheme as a layer of abstraction, which groups together certain types of vehicles. This means, we have to abstract things a bit, and not give every possibility their own label. With more grf authors adopting the scheme, I'm sure, there will be new things to add, we just haven't thought yet, or thought, was not necessary.

I would also consider that third rail.

[Kruemelchen]

Vehicle sets can implement fallbacks with the roadtype/tramtypetable.
https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/N ... mtypetable

Thank you

All in all, I think the scheme looks pretty good now

I have updated a few minor things here: https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/U ... rsion_6.29

Only one more question about the hidden roadtypes (AAAN, ...). These would only need to be defined by vehicle sets, so that no unused roadtype is active? Or how should they be implemented?
And what happens, when a road set uses the label of the hidden roadtype? Would the roadtype then be hidden by the vehicle set? Or could it be "unhidden" by the road set? (The question is, should the use of these labels be not advised?)

[Brickblock1]

All in all, I think the scheme looks pretty good now

I agree

I have updated a few minor things here: https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/U ... rsion_6.29

I personally find it a bit weird how busses are allowed in industrial zones. there is also one small issue which is that RAIL and ELRD aren't default types and should therefore be implemented with an alternative label instead.

Only one more question about the hidden roadtypes (AAAN, ...). These would only need to be defined by vehicle sets, so that no unused roadtype is active? Or how should they be implemented?
And what happens, when a road set uses the label of the hidden roadtype? Would the roadtype then be hidden by the vehicle set? Or could it be "unhidden" by the road set? (The question is, should the use of these labels be not advised?)

It could be unhidden by the roadset but that would be a weird way of coding it, however I still think it is better if the vehicle set doesn't define roads like that unless it has an inbuilt roadset which can be dissabled when/if you want to use another one.

[Kruemelchen]

I personally find it a bit weird how busses are allowed in industrial zones. there is also one small issue which is that RAIL and ELRD aren't default types and should therefore be implemented with an alternative label instead.
Why shouldn't busses be allowed? Some Industry Sets implement workers, who need to be transported to industries.
I thought of industrial zones like private roads, where vehicles can be used that are not allowed on public roads. But vice versa the usual vehicles shouldn't be prohibited, right?

I've fixed RAIL/ELRD!

It could be unhidden by the roadset but that would be a weird way of coding it, however I still think it is better if the vehicle set doesn't define roads like that unless it has an inbuilt roadset which can be dissabled when/if you want to use another one.

Then it is up to road set authors to define these hidden roadtypes? Makes sense

It now reads:

Code: Select all

Hidden roadtypes for compatibility should be implemented by track sets. It is up to the author to decide if they want to implement it as a hidden roadtype or not. 

[Brickblock1]

It could be unhidden by the roadset but that would be a weird way of coding it, however I still think it is better if the vehicle set doesn't define roads like that unless it has an inbuilt roadset which can be dissabled when/if you want to use another one.

Then it is up to road set authors to define these hidden roadtypes? Makes sense

It now reads:

Code: Select all

Hidden roadtypes for compatibility should be implemented by track sets. It is up to the author to decide if they want to implement it as a hidden roadtype or not. 

Yes

Track set?

[Kruemelchen]

Track set?

Fixed

https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/U ... rsion_6.29

[Kruemelchen]

Another question:

Where in the scheme would herded livestock or horses that pull wood go?

These would mainly run on non-public roads, so they both could be labelled IAAN, right?

So maybe we need to define the "I" as non-public road to make this clearer?

[Erato]

I would like to give my 2 cents;
The railtype standard exists so trainsets and tracksets can interoperate easily.
I hate it when road vehicle newgrfs or road newgrfs limit interoperability. All road vehicles should be able to go on all roads.

[Kruemelchen]

I would like to give my 2 cents;
The railtype standard exists so trainsets and tracksets can interoperate easily.
I hate it when road vehicle newgrfs or road newgrfs limit interoperability. All road vehicles should be able to go on all roads.

Well, monorail, maglev or hyperloop can't run on standard rail track either, nor narrow gauge or broad gauge on standard gauge

The railtype standard exists, so that different trainsets and tracksets work together in the sense, that trains of different types (i.e. narrow gauge, metro/3rd rail, ...) work on tracks that support the scheme.

If we had only RAIL (and ELRL), we wouldn't need a railtype standard either

And with road vehicles, too, there are vehicles and roads, which don't work together.

It's true, there are universal tracksets, which support all types of trains, as some players prefer that behaviour. But the same can be done with roadsets easily, when vehicle sets stick to the standard scheme

In short: the standard scheme gives control back to the players to choose between micromanaged or universal roadsets

[Brickblock1]

Should we consider this finished? It would seam that there are no other additions or changes neccesary.

[Quast65]

Should we consider this finished? It would seam that there are no other additions or changes neccesary.

GarryG has thought of some "vehicles" that go in the middle of a road, maybe use letter C for that?
(As there is also a separate thing for vehicles in the bicycle lane)

[Kruemelchen]

GarryG has thought of some "vehicles" that go in the middle of a road, maybe use letter C for that?
(As there is also a separate thing for vehicles in the bicycle lane)

What do you mean by "go in the middle of a road"?

If you refer to GarryGs cyclists or marching soldier parades, these could be of type RABN (the standard type) or ZABN (pedestrian zone vehicles)

It would then up to the roadset author to allow ZABN vehicles on public roads as well.

[Quast65]

marching soldier parades, these could be of type RABN (the standard type) or ZABN (pedestrian zone vehicles)

Yes, those soldiers and a couple of other vehicles that "drive" in the center/middle of a road.
Hmmmm, I think they may be better off then as EABN...
As they should be allowed on more roads then just pedestrian ones, but not all roads (for example not on Motor- and Highways).

[Kruemelchen]

Yes, those soldiers and a couple of other vehicles that "drive" in the center/middle of a road.
Hmmmm, I think they may be better off then as EABN...
As they should be allowed on more roads then just pedestrian ones, but not all roads (for example not on Motor- and Highways).

True, you are right, I forgot we put in E = Eyecandy for that purpose
I'm getting old

[Quast65]

For future reference:

GarryG has started using labels of the standard.
For a how-to-impliment-that-in-your-own-sets you can go to this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=1260935#p1260935

[Auge]

Hello

Should we consider this finished? It would seam that there are no other additions or changes neccesary.

As you, stating the proposal to be final and Kruemelchen adding feature E for eyecandy to his version of the proposal, shouldn't the scheme page move from the user spaces to the offical documentation?

Tschö, Auge

[Brickblock1]

Hello

Should we consider this finished? It would seam that there are no other additions or changes neccesary.

As you, stating the proposal to be final and Kruemelchen adding feature E for eyecandy to his version of the proposal, shouldn't the scheme page move from the user spaces to the offical documentation?

Tschö, Auge

I was going to move it over but I wanted to check that there wasn't anything that had to be added.

[GarryG]

GarryG has thought of some "vehicles" that go in the middle of a road, maybe use letter C for that?

I only just notice some of things in this post .

The the livestock, military and motor bikes that looks like they are in middle of road don't really go in middle of the road. They operate on the correct side, just that I made them bigger (or higher) to make them look like they cover all the road. Just like a double decker bus .. it is high and covers the other lane.

The only things I have made that I want to actually go in middle of the road are what I added in the AuzFarmRoads. The tractor and 2 horse sets maybe add a few other things later. We have some object single roads, but hoping to have some actual single roads. I think be nice with some animation on a farm of tractors and animals moving around.

Cheers all