Watch the overview
75 seconds. A narrated explainer; the transcript is below. The written guide includes additional detail.
Read the video text
- 0:00A survey can have perfectly formed columns
- 0:02and still describe the wrong road. Engineering
- 0:06alignment asks whether each record belongs to
- 0:08the project network, classification and lane references.
- 0:12Start with a demonstration road, DEMO zero
- 0:15one. The engine resolves its road identifier
- 0:18against the reference index. Normalisation handles case
- 0:22and whitespace; ambiguous candidates are not silently
- 0:25selected. Next, compare the submitted kilometre range
- 0:29with the road extent. A segment from
- 0:31nine point eight to ten point two
- 0:33cannot fit entirely within a network ending
- 0:35at ten kilometres. The lane register adds
- 0:38another relationship: does the submitted lane exist
- 0:41for that road and location? A valid-looking
- 0:44lane code alone cannot answer that question.
- 0:47Reference strength matters. A network reference and
- 0:50an inferred road extent do not carry
- 0:53identical evidence. Missing references leave affected checks
- 0:57not checked, rather than proving alignment. Read
- 1:00the finding, source reference and proposed action
- 1:02together. Correct the source or reference deliberately,
- 1:06then run the check again. Keep the
- 1:08version used for that review traceable.
One road. Several references.
A survey can have perfectly formed columns and still describe the wrong road. Engineering alignment asks whether each record belongs to the project network, classification and lane references.
Start with a demonstration road, DEMO zero one. The engine resolves its road identifier against the reference index. Normalisation handles case and whitespace; ambiguous candidates are not silently selected.
Compare the kilometre extent
Next, compare the submitted kilometre range with the road extent. A segment from nine point eight to ten point two cannot fit entirely within a network ending at ten kilometres.
The lane register adds another relationship: does the submitted lane exist for that road and location? A valid-looking lane code alone cannot answer that question.
Follow one identifier through the references
For the fictional DEMO-01 road, compare the survey identifier with the network entry before interpreting its chainage or lane. A range of 9.8–10.2 km extends 0.2 km beyond a 10.0 km network end. A lane that exists elsewhere on the network is not automatically a valid lane at this location. Resolve each relationship with the reference source and version used for the run.
Keep an ambiguous match unresolved until there is enough evidence to choose. Normalisation of case or whitespace is different from selecting a nearby road with another identity. Review proposed actions together with the original record and avoid making several speculative corrections at once.
Keep uncertainty visible
Reference strength matters. A network reference and an inferred road extent do not carry identical evidence. Missing references leave affected checks not checked, rather than proving alignment.
Read the finding, source reference and proposed action together. Correct the source or reference deliberately, then run the check again. Keep the version used for that review traceable.
Sources and scope
This guide describes the platform workflow; it does not establish a requirement of a TMH manual. Platform review and certification are described in the product documentation.
Put it into practice
Review check templatesSign-in and the relevant account permissions are required.