Should roads be separate fixed, location assets?

Hi everyone
I have 80 hectares of wilderness, and crazy gravel roads that vary from stupid to tolerable.
They need work, sometimes they are used to store assets in areas, etc
I would like to add roads as locations, but not sure how to do this.

For one, I always record my geo locations on android using GPS Logger, so I already have the kml paths for the roads. Should I store each path as a location and name it, set it as a fixed location?
What would you do?

This way I can log work, assets, movements to roads.

Great software, great people. Thanks

1 Like

Yea I would probably suggest storing them as Land assets with a Land type of “Other” for now. Land assets are “fixed” by default (as defined here: Location | farmOS).

Ideally it might be nice if there were a “Land type” option for “Road” - or maybe even a “Road” asset type. But a separate asset type only really makes sense if you’re really in the business of managing those roads. Maybe a Dept of Transportation farmOS instance would want that. :sweat_smile:

It’s possible to define new “Land type” options in a custom module, if you wanted to add “Road” as an option (and if you’re self-hosting and can add your own modules). But “Other” is probably good enough for your purposes, I’m guessing. :person_shrugging:

1 Like

Thanks Mike
I agree. Other makes sense. You clarified my understanding and it gives me assurance tonuse it this way. I agree that adding roads as a type would just veer off topic for software and open up a rabbit hole.

1 Like

Interesting question… what do you think about using structure assets for roads? Structure assets can be locations, too!

It would be nice if we could formalize the concept of roads roads though because it is quite common and could be one less complexity for users to “wonder” about. I agree that roads should normally be fixed location assets but not sure on land vs structure… There is likely an argument for both and not a right/wrong answer, but IMO without a dedicated road land type I think I might lean more towards using structure assets.

This is partially because I’m thinking about the drain structure type we added for Rothamsted Research: Drain structure issue + discussion and the resulting Drain structure config. In this case the “Drain” is interesting because it is both (I assume) physical infrastructure but also a piece of land that is managed like other types of land (mowing, spraying, etc). In that issue we also mention adding “Road” structure types as well but ultimately “we discussed that we could add additional types in the future, but there should be some thought & reason before everything [on the property at Rothamsted] gets mapped & added to farmOS.”

I think I consider structure as “infra-structure” more generally and would prefer to keep things separate from “land” when possible. The idea of “storage locations” is interesting though. If I had a piece of land without physical building/infrastructure that was only used to store things on I would probably create a field/other land asset… although if I thought about it long enough I might just end up making it a structure asset too :stuck_out_tongue:

Maybe there is a use-case for asset categories here :slight_smile: Cannot categorize assets with a taxonomy


Now that you mention it @paul121 - I agree. A Structure asset makes more sense for roads than a Land asset.

The only thing is: Structure assets also have a “Structure type”, like “Land type”, but there are only two options: “Building” and “Greenhouse”. Perhaps we need to add an “Other” option to the list of structure types, at the very least (if not a “Road” type itself).

Edit: Oh! I mispoke. We DO have an “Other” structure type already. :slight_smile: