China GB 46750 Remote ID: field mapping gaps in MAVLink OpenDroneID

MAVLink
1

Hi everyone,

I would like to discuss how China GB 46750 Remote ID fields should be mapped to the current MAVLink OpenDroneID message set.

China GB 46750-2025, Specification for civil unmanned aircraft system operational identification（《民用无人驾驶航空器系统运行识别规范》）, defines operational identification requirements for civil unmanned aircraft systems in China.

My goal is not to overload existing MAVLink/OpenDroneID fields, but to understand which GB 46750 fields can be represented by the current message set and which parts may need clarification or extension.

China GB 46750 fields considered

The GB 46750 fields I am considering are:

GB 46750 field Chinese term Meaning
Unique product identification code 唯一产品识别码 Product-level unique identifier for the unmanned aircraft
Real-name registration mark 实名登记标志 Registration mark, for example UAS + 8 digits
UAS operation category 无人驾驶航空器系统运行类别 Operation category, such as undefined/open/specific/certified
UA classification 无人驾驶航空器分类 China regulatory classification, such as micro/light/small/medium/large

Possible MAVLink/OpenDroneID mapping

After reviewing the current MAVLink OpenDroneID messages, my preliminary understanding is:

GB 46750 field Possible MAVLink/OpenDroneID mapping Notes
Unique product identification code OPEN_DRONE_ID_BASIC_ID.uas_id May be usable if the value fits the Basic ID size and format constraints
Real-name registration mark Possibly OPEN_DRONE_ID_OPERATOR_ID.operator_id Needs semantic confirmation
UAS operation category Possible extension of OPEN_DRONE_ID_SYSTEM classification framework May require China-specific category values
UA classification Possible extension of OPEN_DRONE_ID_SYSTEM classification framework May require China-specific class values

Relevant MAVLink/OpenDroneID fields

OPEN_DRONE_ID_BASIC_ID contains:

Field Meaning
id_type Type / format of uas_id
ua_type UA type/configuration
uas_id UAS identification value

My understanding is:

  • id_type describes the format/source of uas_id.
  • ua_type describes the aircraft type/configuration.
  • Neither should be used to represent China’s operation category or micro/light/small/medium/large regulatory classification.

OPEN_DRONE_ID_SYSTEM also contains a classification framework:

Field Meaning
classification_type Classification type
category_eu EU operation category
class_eu EU UA class

This seems relevant for China GB 46750.

However, category_eu and class_eu are explicitly EU-specific, so I do not think China values should be mapped directly into the existing EU enums.

A cleaner direction may be to extend the existing OPEN_DRONE_ID_SYSTEM classification framework for China, instead of introducing a completely separate regional OpenDroneID message.

Possible direction

My current thinking is:

  • Keep existing MAVLink OpenDroneID field semantics unchanged.
  • Use OPEN_DRONE_ID_BASIC_ID.uas_id for the unique product identification code where appropriate.
  • Do not overload id_type or ua_type for China-specific regulatory classification.
  • Do not directly reuse the EU-specific MAV_ODID_CATEGORY_EU or MAV_ODID_CLASS_EU enums for China values.
  • Consider extending the existing OPEN_DRONE_ID_SYSTEM classification framework, for example with:
    • a China classification type, such as MAV_ODID_CLASSIFICATION_TYPE_CN;
    • China-specific operation category values;
    • China-specific UA classification values.

Questions

I would appreciate feedback on the following questions:

  1. Should China GB 46750 support extend the existing OPEN_DRONE_ID_SYSTEM classification framework instead of introducing a separate regional OpenDroneID message?

  2. Would adding a new classification type, such as MAV_ODID_CLASSIFICATION_TYPE_CN, be an acceptable direction?

  3. Should China operation category and UA classification use China-specific enums rather than reusing the existing EU-specific enums?

  4. Can the GB 46750 real-name registration mark be semantically represented by OPEN_DRONE_ID_OPERATOR_ID.operator_id, or should it still be treated as a China-specific field?