Draft for discussion: Add TYPE_RURAL and change TYPE_DRIVING to TYPE_CITY

[FlorianMueller87]

Reference to a related issue in the repository

ASAM OSI and ISO 23150 or AUTOSAR ADI have a common history. Unfortunately, the inner structure, the naming and the definitions of the standards are differentiated from each other. This makes the work of developers unnecessary complicated for mostly no technical reasons. All sides should strive to reduce inequality.

ASAM OSI need the entries for osi_lane - Lane – Classification - Type to be compatible with AUTOSAR ADI RoadType.

Add a description

Add osi_lane - Lane – Classification - Type the element TYPE_RURAL and change the name of TYPE_DRIVING to TYPE_CITY.

Take this checklist as orientation for yourself, if this PR is ready for the Change Control Board:

• My suggestion follows the style and contributors guidelines.
• I have taken care about the documentation.
• I have done the DCO signoff.
• My changes generate no errors when passing CI tests.
• I have successfully implemented and tested my fix/feature locally.
• Appropriate reviewer(s) are assigned.

The checks will follow.

Describe the backwards compatibility

The adding of the elements will not lead to backward compatibility issues. The name changing would lead to backward combability issues. Compiler would detect this change.

Additional context

ISO23150:2021 A.2.48 Road type
@ThomasNaderBMW @jdsika @schmidtlorenz

[pmai]

ISO 23150 A.2.48 Road Type is a road-level determination, hence has no bearing on the lane type which is a totally different concept (this is concerned with the role the lane plays in the road network, not the overall road classification).

I'm also wondering why only city and rural are being suggested for adding, while highway and off-road are not?

That being said, from a sensor perspective the exemplary enumerators for road type in ISO 23150 seem very badly defined (even disregarding the use of the self-contradictory use of the term off-road for a gravel road):

It seems a bad amalgamation of road construction type (e.g. highway vs non-highway vs. gravel road) and location/road rules type (highway vs. rural vs. city), the later of which is then completely under-defined (what about city highways, what about hamlets, ...) and not really detectable by a sensor anyway.

If this is cleaned up on the ISO/ADI side to a construction related property it could be added as a new field to the road conditions sub-message.

If it is about road type in terms of rules of use, then it would likely belong as a new field in the lane classifications or a new road classifications sub-message; it would need very hard work to make this work in an international context, though.

Right now I would not know what to do with this mess.

[FlorianMueller87]

I see your points. I will raise this with ISO.

[jdsika]

We need your input here @carsten-kuebler