Dear Johan, Kai,
Seems that right now carrier vehicle types can
either be defined in the carrier plans file
or be defined in a separate file.
I don't think that we want to support both execution paths. Do you have a preference?
(In terms of coding I don't think that it makes a difference. In terms of maintenance, it might be easier to have it in separate files, because one might be able to bump up the version of the plans file without having to bump up the version of the vehicleTypes file, and vice versa.)
Note that the carrier vehicles themselves will remain in the carrier plans file; I think that that would be too much of a change.
Thanks and best wishes
[Created via e-mail received from: "Nagel, Kai, Prof. Dr." <firstname.lastname@example.org>]