RRAMS road condition data: register to first asset management plan

RRAMS road condition data is the set of visual ratings and roughness values that a district municipality collects under the rural roads asset management system (RRAMS) programme. A district builds a first-year dataset in nine stages, from a classified road network to a written asset management plan. Each stage rests on a named South African road manual, so the dataset can be checked before payment.

Key facts

• A district's first year of RRAMS road condition data runs in nine stages, each governed by a named South African road manual and edition.
• TMH 22 (Draft, March 2013) ties data collection frequency and roughness device class to the TRH 26 functional road class, so the class must be fixed before surveys start.
• TMH 9 (Committee Draft Final, May 2016) records visual ratings and gives no index formula; TMH 22 Part E describes the condition indices, so the index variant must be named.
• South African road manual TMH 18 exists as Draft Version 4 (October 2014) and Committee Draft 5.0 (February 2016), differing in geometry format, visual file extensions and class field name.
• A data-readiness check reconciles register length, segment coverage, instrument coverage and kilometre direction before a survey is accepted.
• TMH 22 Appendix J-10 gives a plan template whose declaration lists each data set, its completeness, its maximum age and who accepted it.

What RRAMS road condition data does a district collect in its first year?

In its first year a district collects road condition data: records of how a road looks (distress ratings) and rides (roughness), each tied to a link, kilometre range and date.

TMH (Technical Methods for Highways) and TRH (Technical Recommendations for Highways) are series of South African road manuals, now issued under the Committee of Transport Officials (COTO). Six documents carry the nine stages:

• TRH 26 South African Road Classification and Access Management Manual (Version 1.0, August 2012) sets out functional road classes. (COTO, 2012)
• TMH 9 Manual for Visual Assessment of Road Pavements (Committee Draft Final, May 2016) describes visual rating. (COTO, 2016b)
• TMH 13 Automated Road Condition Assessments (Committee Draft Final, May 2016) covers instrument surveys. (COTO, 2016a)
• TMH 18 Road Asset Data Electronic Exchange Formats (Draft Version 4, October 2014, and Committee Draft 5.0, February 2016) lists the file formats. (COTO, 2014) (COTO, 2016i)
• Draft TMH 22 Road Asset Management Manual (March 2013) describes the register, indices, needs and plan. (COTO, 2013)
• The National Treasury Accounting Guideline on GRAP 17 (Generally Recognised Accounting Practice) Property, Plant and Equipment, dated January 2014, covers the accounting side of a register. (National Treasury, 2014)

RRAMS is the grant-funded programme through which district municipalities gather road data. A parliamentary reply of 17 June 2022 lists condition data for paved and unpaved roads, bridge, culvert and traffic data, and a road asset management plan. It names TMH 9 and TMH 22 for the first and last tasks. (Minister of Transport, 2022) This guide covers pavements only, quotes no grant amounts and gives no legal advice.

Where do hand-offs fail between the nine RRAMS data stages?

A hand-off between two stages fails where one stage's output is not what the next manual expects.

Stage	Manual and section	What fails at the hand-off
1. Network definition	TRH 26 chapter 5; TMH 22 B.1.3, B.1.4	Class and kilometre datum not fixed first; later stages inherit the error.
2. Segments	TMH 9 Part A, A.3, A.4	Boundaries left to each assessor, so segments change between surveys and join poorly to instrument records.
3. Visual survey	TMH 9 Parts B and E	Wet-weather ratings, the wrong part for the surface, no re-assessment sample.
4. Roughness survey	TMH 13 Part C; TMH 22 D.4.3	Device class does not match road class; no calibration or validation record.
5. Exchange files	TMH 18	Version not named; kilometres outside the network record; empty fields dropped.
6. Register	TMH 22 B.2, B.7; GRAP 17 guideline section 11	Ownership unresolved, or surface held per road, not per kilometre range.
7. Indices	TMH 22 Part E	Index variant not named; the TMH 18 index field does not record the formula.
8. Needs	TMH 22 Parts F, G	Network averages read as project decisions.
9. Plan	TMH 22 Part H, Appendix J-10	Age and quality of each data set not declared.

Narrated film · 1:28

A district's first year of road data

A nine-stage journey rail from network definition to asset management plan, with the governing manual at each stage and a keep-list at each hand-off.

Read the film transcript

What road condition data does a district collect in its first year, and in what order? Under the rural roads asset management system programme, districts collect visual ratings and roughness values. Nine stages run from network definition to a written plan, each resting on a named manual. TRH 26 sets out the road classes, TMH 9 describes segments and visual rating, and TMH 13 covers roughness. TMH 18 lists exchange files, Draft TMH 22 describes the register, indices, needs and plan, and a GRAP 17 guideline covers accounting. At each stage the district keeps evidence, so the dataset can be checked before payment. Fix the road class and kilometre datum first, because every later stage inherits the error. Then name the TMH 18 version and the index variant in the terms of reference. The two TMH 18 versions differ in geometry, visual file extensions and class field name. In this synthetic link, the register gives eighteen point seven kilometres, but the roughness records cover eighteen point six. Map lengths hide a tenth of a kilometre, and the files run in opposite directions, so the district withholds acceptance. The manuals do not decide budgets, grant rules, accounting policy or project decisions. A dataset is defensible only when the hand-offs hold and each stage's evidence is kept. Next, TRH 12 takes a flagged flexible pavement into investigation, and TRH 20 covers gravel roads.

How do I run the nine RRAMS data stages in order?

Run the nine stages in this order; each output feeds the next.

1. Define and classify the network. List each road with a unique identifier and start and end kilometre, and divide it into uniform links. Run the digitised line in the direction of the kilometre distances, then give each link a dated TRH 26 class. (COTO, 2013) (COTO, 2012)
2. Predefine the segments. Issue the segment list before the survey; TMH 9 recommends the authority, not the assessor, sets the boundaries. (COTO, 2016b)
3. Rate the surface visually. Use TMH 9 Part B for flexible pavements (how to run a TMH 9 visual assessment) and Part E for unpaved roads (rating a gravel road). Survey in dry conditions, with accredited assessors and a re-assessed sample. (COTO, 2016b) (COTO, 2016j) (COTO, 2016k)
4. Measure roughness. Plan the survey, match the device class to the road class, calibrate or validate the device first and report the International Roughness Index (IRI) in m/km. On unpaved roads a visual rating may serve. (COTO, 2016d) (COTO, 2016a) (COTO, 2013)
5. Assemble the exchange files. Name the TMH 18 version, send the network definition and geometry first, then the condition files with every field present. (COTO, 2014) (COTO, 2016i)
6. Build the register. Record each link as an asset with components, an identifier, a location and ownership evidence. (COTO, 2013) (National Treasury, 2014)
7. Compute the indices. Name the index variant and its source, and store the ratings beside the result (TMH 22 explained). (COTO, 2013)
8. State the needs. Analyse condition by class and set out needs by category, using Parts F and G. (COTO, 2013)
9. Write the plan. Follow the Appendix J-10 template, attach the data declaration and update the plan annually. (COTO, 2013)

What does a data-readiness check look like for one road link?

A data-readiness check reconciles register length, segment coverage, instrument coverage and kilometre direction for one link. Synthetic example, with every value invented. Link DR-A runs from km 12.40 to km 31.10 in the register: 31.10 − 12.40 = 18.70 km. The district holds a geographic information system (GIS) centre line, a visual file (.flx) of nine segment rows and a roughness file (Combined Instrument Data, .cid), both in TMH 18 Committee Draft 5.0 format.

Check	Values	Finding
Register against centre line	18.70 km against 18.68 km	Differ by 0.02 km (20 m); TMH 22 B.1.3 states the tolerance
Visual segments	Nine rows, km 12.40 to km 31.10, lengths sum to 18.70 km	Contiguous, full coverage
Roughness records	Records span km 12.40 to km 31.00	18.60 km covered; 0.10 km (about 0.5 %) missing
Direction fields	Visual in increasing kilometres; roughness in decreasing kilometres	Kilometre datum must be confirmed

Check: 0.10 / 18.70 × 100 = 0.53 %. A gap this small does not show when only map lengths are compared. For direction, pick an intersection from the node list, say km 21.50, and confirm both files place it at the same kilometre (chainage, direction and wheelpath). The district checks the 20 m difference against the tolerance and withholds acceptance until the missing record and datum confirmation arrive. The check shows completeness and position, not accuracy, which needs the stage 4 validation record.

What evidence should a district keep from each of the nine stages?

Keep what lets a reviewer reproduce each stage; see what belongs in a survey acceptance pack.

• Network: road list, dated TRH 26 class per link and kilometre datum note.
• Segments: the predefined segment list issued to assessors.
• Visual survey: forms, photographs, assessor accreditation, dates, quality plan and re-assessment results.
• Roughness survey: device and class, calibration or validation report, date and raw records.
• Files: named TMH 18 version, network definition, geometry and validator output.
• Register: one row per link: identifier, location, surface, components, ownership evidence.
• Indices: ratings beside every index, with formula, edition and category.
• Needs: problem statements, needs by category and class, and roads sent to panel inspection.
• Plan: the data declaration: each set's completeness, maximum age, collector and acceptor.

Which editions and TMH 18 version should the terms of reference name?

Name every edition; the covers carry different statuses. COTO's version rules, printed in TMH 9 Part A, say a committee draft has no legal standing and a draft standard, implemented in industry for two years, has full legal standing. (COTO, 2016b) The GRAP 17 guideline says it is not part of the standard. (National Treasury, 2014)

TMH 18 needs its version named on every transmittal. Draft Version 4 names geometry as Keyhole Markup Language (KML) or KMZ files, the visual files as .vcf, .vcc, .vcb and .vcu, and the class field as RCAM_CLASS. (COTO, 2014) Committee Draft 5.0 names geometry as Geography Markup Language (GML) with a schema file or a shapefile set, renames the visual files .flx, .con, .blc and .vgi, and calls the class field RISFSA_CLS. (COTO, 2016i) In both TMH 18 versions, a visual file row must fall inside a road-classification range of the matching surface type, so surface is held per kilometre range, not per road.

What do the road manuals not decide about district data?

Five decisions stay with the district and its advisers.

• Budgets and grant rules. TMH 22 A.2 lists the Division of Revenue Act, the Public Finance Management Act, the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Provincial Road Maintenance Grant, and sets no grant amount or condition. (COTO, 2013)
• Accounting policy. Recognition, depreciation and valuation belong to the entity and its auditor. (National Treasury, 2014)
• The index variant. TMH 9 gives no index formula and TMH 22 Part E describes several indices, so the terms of reference must name the index. (COTO, 2016b) (COTO, 2013)
• Project decisions. TMH 22 D.3.1 leaves project-level work outside the manual; a flagged road still needs investigation. (COTO, 2013)
• The maturity level. TMH 22 A.3.3 describes four levels and a minimum by authority size, without naming district municipalities. The minimum data list in Appendix J-3 is headed Level II in the appendix list and Level III on its own page, so check which the funder cites. (COTO, 2013)

What are the common misreadings of the TMH and TRH road manuals?

• "TMH 9 gives the condition index." TMH 9 supplies type, degree and extent ratings and no formula. TMH 22 Part E describes the visual condition index (VCI) for flexible paved roads (Appendix J-6) and the deduct-point surfacing and pavement indices CISURF and CIPAVE, also printed CIFPAVE (Appendix J-5). Draft TRH 22 Pavement Management Systems (1994), a different document, proposed a modified VCI in its Technical Addendum that TMH 22 did not adopt, so name the variant. (COTO, 2016b) (COTO, 2013) (CSRA, 1994)
• "A segment is a uniform section." TMH 9 A.3 says assessment is not meant to identify uniform sections of distress. A segment is a reporting length; uniform sections come later, for investigation. (COTO, 2016b)
• "The road categories A to D still apply." TRH 26 section 3.14 says the four pavement management categories should not be used; classification should be linked to the functional class. The note concerns management, not design. (COTO, 2012)
• "TMH 20 is the data standard." TMH 22 calls the road network data standard TMH 20; that standard's content now sits in TMH 18, so cite TMH 18 and its version. (COTO, 2013)

Which manual governs each stage

Stages of the journey, the manual that governs each one, and the evidence each stage should leave behind.

Stage	Governing manual	Evidence this stage produces
1. Network definition	TRH 26	Road list with identifiers, dated TRH 26 class per link and the kilometre datum note.
2. Segments	TMH 9	The predefined segment list as issued to the assessors before the survey.
3. Visual survey	TMH 9	Forms, photographs, assessor accreditation, quality plan and re-assessment results.
4. Roughness survey	TMH 13	Device and class, calibration or validation report, date and raw records.
5. Exchange files	TMH 18	Named TMH 18 version, network definition, geometry and validator output.
6. Register	TMH 22	One row per link with identifier, location, surface, components and ownership evidence (TMH 22 B.7; GRAP 17 guideline section 11).
7. Indices	TMH 22	Ratings beside every index, with the formula, its edition and the index category.
8. Needs	TMH 22	Problem statements, needs by category and class, and roads sent to panel inspection.
9. Plan	TMH 22	Data declaration: each set's completeness and maximum age, and who collected and accepted it.

The journey, step by step

1. Define and classify the network

   List each road with a unique identifier and start and end kilometre, and divide it into uniform links. Run the digitised line in the direction of the kilometre distances, then give each link a dated TRH 26 class.

2. Predefine the segments

   Issue the segment list before the survey; TMH 9 recommends the authority, not the assessor, sets the boundaries.

3. Rate the surface visually

   Use TMH 9 Part B for flexible pavements and Part E for unpaved roads. Survey in dry conditions, with accredited assessors and a re-assessed sample.

4. Measure roughness

   Plan the survey, match the device class to the road class, calibrate or validate the device first and report the International Roughness Index (IRI) in m/km. On unpaved roads a visual rating may serve.

5. Assemble the exchange files

   Name the TMH 18 version, send the network definition and geometry first, then the condition files with every field present.

6. Build the register

   Record each link as an asset with components, an identifier, a location and ownership evidence.

7. Compute the indices

   Name the index variant and its source, and store the ratings beside the result.

8. State the needs

   Analyse condition by class and set out needs by category, using TMH 22 Parts F and G.

9. Write the plan

   Follow the Appendix J-10 template, attach the data declaration and update the plan annually.

Frequently asked

What is RRAMS road condition data?

RRAMS road condition data is the information a district municipality gathers on the municipal roads within its boundaries under the rural roads asset management system programme: visual distress ratings, roughness measurements and the network records they attach to. In a parliamentary reply of 17 June 2022 the Minister of Transport described districts collecting condition data, bridge and culvert data and traffic data, then developing a road asset management plan.

Which TMH 18 version should a district name for its road data files?

A district should name the version its receiving system and terms of reference cite, because TMH 18 (the South African road asset data electronic exchange formats manual) exists as Draft Version 4 (October 2014) and Committee Draft 5.0 (February 2016). They differ in geometry formats, visual condition file extensions and the road class field name, so a file set can be checked only against one named version.

Why fix the road class before the surveys start?

TMH 22, the draft South African road asset management manual (March 2013), ties how often condition data is collected and which roughness device class is used to the functional road class in TRH 26, the South African road classification manual. TMH 22's situational analysis also reports condition by class. A wrong class, set late, therefore changes the survey design and the analysis, and every later stage inherits the error.

What should a district check before paying a contractor for road condition data?

A district should reconcile the register length with the sum of segment lengths, check that instrument records cover the whole link, confirm kilometre direction against a known landmark, and ask for the named version of TMH 18 (the South African road data exchange manual), the index variant, assessor accreditation and the calibration or validation records. The synthetic worked example in this guide shows the arithmetic.

Who decides the conditions attached to RRAMS funding?

Conditions on rural roads asset management system (RRAMS) funding come from the funder's grant framework under the Division of Revenue Act, not from the road manuals. TMH 22 (the draft South African road asset management manual, March 2013) lists that Act and the Provincial Road Maintenance Grant among its legislative and policy documents but sets no grant amount or condition. This guide quotes no amounts and gives no legal advice; ask the funder for the current conditions.

Which road manual governs each stage of RRAMS road condition data?

Six South African documents carry the nine stages of RRAMS road condition data. TRH 26 sets out road classes, TMH 9 the segments and visual survey, TMH 13 the roughness survey, TMH 18 the exchange files, and Draft TMH 22 the register, indices, needs and plan. The National Treasury GRAP 17 guideline covers register contents on the accounting side.

Where this connects

TRH 12 Flexible Pavement Rehabilitation Investigation and Design (Draft, 1997) takes a flagged flexible pavement into project-level investigation. (Department of Transport, 1997) TRH 20 Unsealed Roads: Design, Construction and Maintenance (Draft Version 1.5, April 2009) covers gravel road management and investigation. (Department of Transport, 2009) Valuation (TMH 22 Part C, GRAP 17 guideline) is separate work. Last reviewed against these editions on 21 October 2026.

References

1. COTO (2012). TRH 26: South African Road Classification and Access Management Manual (RCAM). Version 1.0, August 2012. Original source.Sections, tables and clauses are cited inline in each guide
2. COTO (2016b). TMH9: Manual for Visual Assessment of Road Pavements. Part A: General. Committee Draft Final, May 2016. Original source.Section A.2: degree and extent
3. COTO (2016a). TMH13: Automated Road Condition Assessments. Part C: Roughness. Committee Draft Final, May 2016. Original source.Sections C.2–C.5; Table C.5 is for calibration-section selection
4. COTO (2014). TMH 18: Road Asset Data Electronic Exchange Formats. Draft Version 4, October 2014. Original source.Sections, tables and clauses are cited inline in each guide
5. COTO (2016i). TMH 18: Road Asset Data Electronic Exchange Formats. Committee Draft 5.0, February 2016. Original source.Sections, tables and clauses are cited inline in each guide
6. COTO (2013). Draft TMH 22: Road Asset Management Manual. Draft, March 2013. Original source.Sections, tables and clauses are cited inline in each guide
7. National Treasury (2014). Accounting Guideline: GRAP 17 Property, Plant and Equipment. January 2014; not part of the GRAP standard, which takes precedence (GRAP 17 issued February 2010). Original source.Section 1 (status of the guideline), section 2 (infrastructure assets such as road networks), section 11 (asset register contents)
8. Minister of Transport (2022). Reply to Question NW2217 to the Minister of Transport (Rural Road Asset Management Systems Grant). Parliamentary reply, 17 June 2022; record held by the Parliamentary Monitoring Group. Original source.Reply (a): district data collection under the Rural Road Asset Management Systems Grant and the road asset management plan
9. COTO (2016j). TMH 9: Manual for Visual Assessment of Road Pavements. Part B: Flexible Pavements. Committee Draft Final, May 2016. Original source.Sections, tables and clauses are cited inline in each guide
10. COTO (2016k). TMH 9: Manual for Visual Assessment of Road Pavements. Part E: Unpaved Roads. Committee Draft Final, May 2016. Original source.Sections, tables and clauses are cited inline in each guide
11. COTO (2016d). TMH 13: Automated Road Condition Assessments. Part A: General. Committee Draft Final, May 2016. Original source.Sections, tables and clauses are cited inline in each guide
12. CSRA (1994). Draft TRH22: Pavement Management Systems. Pretoria: Department of Transport, 1994. Original source.Technical Addendum A.3, equations A.3.1–A.3.3 and Table A.3.1, printed pp. 125–126; Section 6.2.2, printed pp. 55–56, for alternative-weight normalisation
13. Department of Transport (1997). TRH12: Flexible Pavement Rehabilitation Investigation and Design. Draft TRH12, Pretoria: Department of Transport for COLTO. Original source.Chapter 1: rehabilitation design process; investigation, evaluation, analysis and economic appraisal
14. Department of Transport (2009). Draft TRH 20: Unsealed Roads: Design, Construction and Maintenance. Draft Version 1.5, April 2009. Original source.Sections, tables and clauses are cited inline in each guide

Use the manual edition and project requirements that apply to your work. Worked examples use synthetic values and are not site-specific design advice.