This is the sort of feel-good rule making that stifles an economy.
Driverless tractors exist. They’ve been deployed across the world. We have real-world data about their safety and precisely zero cases where they ran into schools because they got lost.
There is a legitimate safety debate that can be had. But it should pit data against data, not hypotheticals.
and Yes we do have OSS tool for that
Commercial aircraft aren't legally allowed to fly with only GPS for navigation, and for good reason.
That particular one is considered outdated but still used in some areas.
Automatic landing is done by tuning into a certain frequency, and two angled transmitters are used so that a plane too far to the left receives a certain pattern and a plane too far to the right receives a different one. A similar system is used for vertical guidance. How easy is it to transmit a short repeating pattern at an aircraft to make it think it's too far to the left?
And these are allowed to fly, and refrigerators are legal too even though filling one with propane and a spark source may cause it to explode.
I'm more worried about something like humans unexpectedly in the field. Imagine a migrant crossing a field and getting run over by a combine.
I'm not opposed to the idea of autonomous (or better near-autonomous) tractors working in fields. They'd definitely be safer than autonomous vehicles on roads. I just think people, especially at a tech-loving forum like this, are a little too quick to assume safety concerns are fully covered. Perhaps they can be, but will they be when large corporate farms cut corners on things like maintenance?
I started driving tractors when I was 10, and I've been in a couple situations where equipment failure required some quick action to get stopped before serious damage was done. Shit happens, and should be expected to happen and prepared for.