I kind of assumed this to be the way of doing thisBrickblock1 wrote: ↑02 Jun 2023 07:39 It is probably better to have the sets add roadtypes that they don't define into the powered_roadtype_list asuming that the vehicles should be able to traverse those road/tracks. This does however currently not support having multible roads with the same features so that would have to be fixed by limiting the speed class to a smaller selection of letters, this would lead to roads being overriden which isn't ideal but there isn't much we can do about it. I do however think it might be worth standardising some types such as chips/irs ground and possibly covered roads/tracks, these would then use numbers in order to be not be interfering with other roads. This does have issues where we might have to update the spec in the future in order to allow more distinct types but I don't see a way around that.
In my eyes, it is not avoidable to have roads/tracks override each other. Players could change the load order in order to choose between different styles of the same road/track type, which is not ideal, but possible.
For special types such as CHIPS ground or covered tracks etc. I think, too, we would need to gather the labels in the wiki, as they are being created.
In the end it is up to the GRF author to decide that, but I would find it easier, if the standard would strive for interoperability between road/track sets, as this would make life easier for players who want to combine different sets together. (Especially if the 64 road/tram type ID limit might being lifted sometime in the future OR a decoration overlay sees implementation)Brickblock1 wrote: ↑02 Jun 2023 07:39 Or we just don't make roadsets compatible with each other which would mean that the standard becomes easier to understand.
