Watch the overview
About 3 minutes. A narrated explainer; the same words are below.
Read the video text
- 0:00A survey file is useful only when a road authority can connect it to an asset and make a decision from it.
- 0:06TMH 22 and TMH 18 describe different parts of that job. Keep their roles, and their editions, separate.
- 0:16This guide uses the TMH 22 Road Asset Management Manual, the March 2013 draft.
- 0:22Its data exchange companion here is TMH 18 Committee Draft five point zero, dated February 2016. Version five belongs to TMH 18.
- 0:33TMH 22 covers the management of road assets and the information needed to support it.
- 0:40TMH 18 describes exchange files and fields. A correctly formatted file is an input to asset management, not a complete asset management system.
- 0:51Part D of TMH 22 discusses usage and condition data. Section D five point two describes information requirements and data transfer.
- 1:02Agree the delivery profile with the receiving authority. Record the standard, its edition, the required files, and the review process.
- 1:12For Version five visual condition data, the extensions are F L X, C O N, B L C and V G I.
- 1:21Older Version four names and columns need an explicit mapping. Changing the filename alone does not convert the records.
- 1:29Before transfer, record which files you are sending and how many records each contains. Keep the original survey export.
- 1:38After receipt, compare the counts. A successful upload alone cannot tell you whether an earlier export lost some records.
- 1:46Section D five point twelve of TMH 22 describes integrity checks, including record counts, duplicates and matching key fields.
- 1:55For example, a road identifier used to join two files must describe the same road in both. Otherwise the records cannot be reliably connected.
- 2:11In TMH18 Validator, choose the check template for the file and the adopted edition, then review the findings.
- 2:19Only claim checks that actually ran. Investigate warnings, explain skipped checks, and keep the evidence behind every recorded exception.
- 2:30The platform certificate records a review decision and identifies the certified file with a hash.
- 2:35It does not establish full TMH 22 compliance or prove that survey measurements are correct. Those require evidence beyond a file check.
- 2:46Hand over the agreed edition, the exact files, the record counts, the findings and the decisions that resolved them.
- 2:53That gives the receiving team a traceable starting point for asset management. Read the full guide at TMH18 dot co dot z a, slash articles.
Give each manual its own role
TMH-22, the Road Asset Management Manual, describes how a road authority manages its assets and the information that supports those decisions. TMH-18, Road Asset Data Electronic Exchange Formats, describes the exchange files used to deliver road data. They work at different levels: one is about asset management, the other about transferring structured data.
This guide uses the TMH-22 March 2013 draft, supplied in the V8b source file, and TMH-18 Committee Draft 5.0 of February 2016. Do not call TMH-22 “Version 5”. Record the editions adopted by the authority or contract, including any agreed implementation profile.
Agree the delivery before exporting
TMH-22 Part D covers usage and condition data. Section D.5.2 identifies inventory, asset condition, valuation and processed data, and directs transfers towards the COTO road-network data standard. Agree the required deliverable with the receiver before choosing a file layout or a check template.
For a Version 5 TMH-18 delivery, use the Version 5 field definitions and order. Visual-condition files use .flx, .con, .blc and .vgi. Legacy Version 4 visual files use different names and layouts. A filename change does not perform a field mapping or preserve the meaning of the data by itself.
Keep evidence that records survived the transfer
TMH-22 section D.5.12 discusses data integrity: values that represent the same fact must agree. Its examples include checking record counts, duplicate records and key fields used to link files. These checks address whether data remain complete and consistently connected, not just whether a file opens.
Keep a delivery register listing the files, survey dates, source editions and record counts. Compare it with what the receiver obtains. Retain the original export and document transformations. For example, a road identifier linking a condition record to the network must identify the same road in both datasets.
- Name each standard, edition and adopted profile.
- Record the files and their record counts before transfer.
- Check for duplicates and consistent linking identifiers.
- Retain the source export and correction notes.
Use validation as a defined check within the process
In TMH18 Validator, select the check template that matches the actual file and edition. Review the findings and confirm which checks ran. A template label is not evidence that all TMH-18 requirements or the full TMH-22 management process were evaluated.
Resolve errors or use permitted, evidence-backed exceptions. Investigate warnings and account for skipped checks. Keep the review decisions with the exact file passed to the next person. The platform’s approval and certification steps are product workflows; the cited manuals do not establish that this platform fulfils every asset-management obligation.
Hand over the evidence with the exact file
Include the agreed profile, data files, record counts, findings and review decisions in the handover. If a platform certificate is issued, include its ID and the exact matching file. Its hash identifies the certified bytes and helps detect a changed copy.
A certificate does not prove that measurements are correct or establish full TMH-22 compliance. The receiving authority still needs its wider asset-management evidence and professional review. A clear handover makes the performed checks and remaining responsibilities visible.
Put it into practice
Browse check templatesSign-in and the relevant account permissions are required.