Hi @Aethonatic,
Could you please clarify the following points:
- As the issue is not with our test functions but with the adaptation of OSM from vehicle OEMs and the VCA, do you suggest we should inform those parties that OSM is not the correct map platform for their use cases and they should move to an alternative provider?
- Can I use the name "Circular Platform" for a feature if the actual name is "Circular platform"?
- If an object is not there can I delete it?
David Wood is aware of our discussions and will be informed.
Thanks!

Hi,
Thank you for taking the time to write to me. As you can probably tell, this is my first attempt to make edits to OpenStreetMap.
I work for HORIBA MIRA and I was assigned to a project with a goal to update the OSM of our facilities. The driver for this project was that the map was mainly generated by individuals outside our organisation who could only assign features based on visual information mainly produced by aerial photography.
While this can produce partially accurate results, it tells half the story.
As we move towards autonomous vehicle validation, some of the features of our maps need to be able to adapt to the new era. Just to give you an example, our No1 High speed circuit was classified as a motorsport racetrack. A classification like this prohibits autonomous vehicle scenario based tasting when the vehicle under test uses OSM to download the map, as the vehicle believes it's outside its ODD (Operational Design Domain).
Changing the type to motorway, enables the vehicle under test to operate on our facilities.
Another example is the use of name. You mentioned the use of "Circular Platform" as a misused name descriptor. In reality, this area of our proving ground is called Circular Platform. Although we might have a large number of platforms on site, and some of them could be circular as well, if a customer/employee asks for directions for the Circular Platform, there is only one destination we will get at. I agree the name is as descriptive as it could be, but that's the actual name of the facility. BTW, all the names are documented on the official Proving ground driver's handbook.
Another example to demonstrate the inconsistencies when mapping just from aerial photography is the two areas South of the Circular platform (East & West Tangential). From the aerial photography someone could classify these as roads (minor / service) . In reality, the vehicles using those areas can utilise them as single carriageway one direction, single carriageway two directions, single lane with features (bus stop, cones, chicane, road blocks etc.). In addition, it has also been used as a maze (with features blocking the path) for autonomous navigation activities.
I'm not claiming that my work is perfect, I'm trying to comply with the rules but I'm in a difficult position as I keep finding that our use case proves to be an anomaly for OSM and maybe we should turn as a business to a different provider. I still believe though that this would be a wasted opportunity for OSM to be widely adopted by vehicle OEMs.
Apologies for the long post, hope you had the patience to read it!
Still interested in your thoughts...
George

Hi again. Thank you very much for sharing the link. I reviewed it thoroughly and, although I understand your argument, I don't fully agree:
- HORIBA MIRA is a proving ground, which is fundamentally different than a racetrack. The main difference is the dynamic aspect of the use of our facilities (Speed limits are dynamic, traffic signs are portable, track direction can dynamically change etc.
A racetrack, according to the official wiki definition, is racetrack for motorised racing. The facilities under question are facilities for conducting scenario based vehicle verification. As such, they are set up in a way it reflects this use case (consistent direction of travel, relevant speed limits, Highways England compatible lane markings etc.). At this stage, I believe the definitions of a Motorway ("High capacity highways designed to safely carry fast motor traffic") for No1 and Primary Road ("Major arterial road") for No2 are a better match for our facilities than a Racetrack.
- Please also consider that these facilities are private, no public access is allowed and the activities conducted there are covered by NDAs with our customers, including MoD, VCA and other government agencies. As such, since both definitions of the roads in question are not 100% appropriate and until an investigation to incorporate additional road descriptions that would better describe our facilities, I'm be inclined to revert the changes you made for the time being.
- As I can see you are a very experienced contributor, could you please point me to the process for adding new road features to the Data base?
Thanks!

Hello. I’m a Senior Engineer for HORIBA-Mira and I was tasked to update the OpenStreetMap of our facility to meet the requirements of an internal research project. I understand that the use of the tags might be inconsistent, but it was a requirement of our project, hence the change. Could you please revert the change?
Thanks!