Remove land vehicle type #882
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Thomas Sedlmayer <tsedlmayer@pmsfit.de>
jakobkaths
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2025
pmai
approved these changes
Oct 15, 2025
pmai
added
the
ReadyForCCBReview
jdsika
approved these changes
Oct 16, 2025
|
We will provide the opportunity to reconsider deleting the type. "other" will catch everything not concretely defined which may be an amphibious vehicle as well, so the groups consensus is that a land_vehicle type as a general "catch all" for this category of vehicles still makes sense. @beatschrauber is responsible for clarifying this. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Based on the decision in the traffic participant harmonization project, OSI adopts the removal of the type
TYPE_LAND_VEHICLE. Note that the concerned changes were not included in a release yet.TYPE_OTHERalready exists in OSI, so it does not need to be added.@jakobkaths