We here in Berlin (TU and DLR) are using option 2) separate file for reading in the vehicleTypes.
So for me it would be totally fine to remove option 1) vehicleType definition in the Carrier plans file.
Regarding the carrier vehicles: I am in favour of let them remain in the carriers file, because they are necessary for the definition of the VehicleRoutingProblem and define the fleet (infinite or finite) of the carrier.
> Am 07.09.2019 um 16:58 schrieb Nagel, Kai, Prof. Dr. <email@example.com>:
> 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
move content to #MATSIM-968