Add Transport Mode

[woutvandenheuvel]

Type of request

• [x ] I'd like to add something to the OTM 5 spec
• I'd like to change something in the OTM 5 spec

Is your feature request related to a problem?
If so, please describe the problem. For example: with the current specification I cannot model [...]. Or: I'm unable to
provide the use case [...].
Add the mode of transport. Description The mode and means of transport as used for the movement of goods
suggested values:
reference https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/recommendations/rec19/rec19_01cf19e.pdf

Describe the solution you'd like
What would you like to add or change to the specification? Please be as clear and concise as possible.
0 Transport mode not specified
Transport mode has not been specified
Notes:

1. This code can be used when the mode is not known or when information on it is not
   available at the time of issuing the document concerned.
   | 1 Maritime transport
   Transport of goods and/or persons is by sea.
   | 2 Rail transport
   Transport of goods and/or persons is by rail.
   | 3 Road transport
   Transport of goods and/or persons is by road.
   | 4 Air transport
   Transport of goods and/or persons is by air.
   | 5 Mail
   Method to convey goods is by mail
   Notes:
2. This code is provided for practical reasons, despite the fact that mail is not a genuine mode
   of transport. In many countries, the value of merchandise exported and imported by mail is
   considerable, but the exporter or importer concerned would be unable to state by which
   mode postal items had been conveyed.
   | 6 Multimodal transport
   Method to convey goods and/or persons is by multimodal transport.
   Notes:
3. This code is provided for practical reasons, despite the fact that multimodal transport is not
   a genuine mode of transport. It can be used when goods are carried by at least two
   different modes from a place at which the goods are taken in charge by a transport operator
   to a place designated for delivery, on the basis of one transport contract. (Operations of
   pick-up and delivery of goods carried out in the performance of a single mode of transport,
   as defined in such a contract, shall not be considered as multimodal transport).
   | 7 Fixed transport installation
   Transport of item is via a fixed transport installation.
   Notes:
4. This code applies to installations for continuous transport such as pipelines, ropeways
   and electric power lines.
   | 8 Inland water transport
   Transport of goods and/or persons is by inland water.
   #| 9 Transport mode not applicable
   The mode of transport is not applicable

Describe alternatives you've considered
Did you try to solve it with the current specification? If so, how? Please be as clear and concise as possible.

Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

[bmeesters]

I think adding transport mode is a valuable addition. However I think we should add the modality to the trip and not to goods. Using actions you can see which goods are part of which trips. This gives you the ability to precisely model how some goods came from one location to its final destination in a way the current proposal cannot. Using this method you don't really need a multi-modal case anymore as well. It also allows us to be more precise in trips themselves.

Is that a valid alternative @woutvandenheuvel?

[woutvandenheuvel]

Hi Bas That sounds logical to me. It was already my assumption to link it to the trip. Probably I recorded the CR incorrect Met vriendelijke groet, Wout van den Heuvel Op 10 mei 2021 om 08:49 heeft bmeesters ***@***.***> het volgende geschreven:  I think adding transport mode is a valuable addition. However I think we should add the modality to the trip and not to goods. Using actions you can see which goods are part of which trips. This gives you the ability to precisely model how some goods came from one location to its final destination in a way the current proposal cannot. Using this method you don't really need a multi-modal case anymore as well. It also allows us to be more precise in trips themselves. Is that a valid alternative @woutvandenheuvel<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fwoutvandenheuvel&data=04%7C01%7C%7C34b2257dc801424c846308d9137fb151%7C55922987353d4f2cb1ff8c2575f95514%7C0%7C0%7C637562261435531172%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=1ZBLUbg9bPhIWl2mxpkJ%2BKf8YW4nGtcKgR7r5nJt27Y%3D&reserved=0>? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopentripmodel%2Fotm5-change-requests%2Fissues%2F12%23issuecomment-836256125&data=04%7C01%7C%7C34b2257dc801424c846308d9137fb151%7C55922987353d4f2cb1ff8c2575f95514%7C0%7C0%7C637562261435541135%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=lZeCrVvBedBfbP8GW4tbJGkZFFqbXJb9j3wpWxxunOU%3D&reserved=0>, or unsubscribe<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAIHJ7G3LHEPMJAHO5CGZCT3TM56VVANCNFSM44JR5W5A&data=04%7C01%7C%7C34b2257dc801424c846308d9137fb151%7C55922987353d4f2cb1ff8c2575f95514%7C0%7C0%7C637562261435541135%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=VYeLLqTDXLobH6LkstXO2beE3WtkKRGaLliA70MUAZ0%3D&reserved=0>.

[thomaskolmans]

Is this not partially covered by the vehicleType constraint? Aside from that, I would like to have it added not just to the Trip in case it does get added but also the MoveAction as these do not have to relate necessarily - if added of course.

[bmeesters]

vehicle constraints were originally meant to be a bit more specific. I.e. you do not only need a truck, but a truck with some cooling options. Though looking at the specification I think this constraints needs some more attention since you cannot truly express that.

Also, IMO, a simple field on the trip (and move action) is a lot simpler to process than a constraint. Constraints in general have some ergonomic problems, but for some use cases (such as time windows, etc.) I think they make sense, since the alternatives are also somewhat complex or not generic enough.

I am still in favor of just adding the field. @thomaskolmans do you agree?

[thomaskolmans]

Yes - I agree, with then the note to also add it to the MoveAction and the Trip model.

[bmeesters]

Closing this as it is now official part of OTM5.1