WZDWG Semi Annual Meeting, 2021 03 16

Virtual Attendees:

• AASHTO - Venkat Nallamothu
• Arizona DOT - Adam Carreon
• Arizona DOT - Marty Lauber
• Aurora Innovation - Marysa Myers
• Booz Allen Hamilton - Brenda Boyce
• Booz Allen Hamilton - Eric Ricciardi
• Booz Allen Hamilton - Mahsa Ettefagh
• Castle Rock Associates - Kristin Virshbo
• Castle Rock ITS – Mariah Lynch
• CBB - Mirza Sharif
• Ceve - David Aylesworth
• Ceve - Kris Milster
• City of Austin - Luke Urie
• City of Harrisburg - John Snedeker
• Colorado DOT - Ashley Nylen
• Colorado DOT - Benajmin Acimovic
• Colorado DOT - Esayas Butta
• Colorado DOT - Manjari Bhat
• Colorado DOT - San Lee
• FHWA New Jersey - Ekaraj Phomsavath
• General Motors - Curtis Hay
• General Motors - David Craig
• General Services Administration - Philip Ashlock
• Georgia DOT - Andrew Heath
• Global Nomad GIS Services - Nazih Fino
• HAAS Alert - Jeremy Agulnek
• HERE Technologies - Jingwei Xu
• HERE Technologies - Weimin Huang
• Hillsborough County - William Twaite
• HNTB - Jorge Uy
• HNTB - Steve Johnson
• IBI Group - Jacob Brady
• IBI Group - Michelle Boucher
• iCone - Ross Sheckler
• Indiana DOT - Mischa Kachler
• Iowa DOT - Sinclair Stolle
• Iowa State - Skylar Knickerbocker
• ITE - Siva Narla
• Kapsch - Lauri Brady
• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet - Chris Lambert
• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet - William Holmes
• Louisville Metro Government - Michael Schnuerle
• Lyft - John Maddox
• Mapbox - Mikel Maron
• Maricopa County DOT - Faisal Saleem
• Maryland DOT - Hua Xiang
• Massachusetts DOT - Carrie McInerney
• Massachusetts DOT - Corey O'Connor
• Massachusetts DOT - Neil Boureau
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission - Nisar Ahmed
• Michigan DOT - Chris Brookes
• Michigan DOT - Meredith Nelson
• Minnesota DOT - Ashley Buechter
• Minnesota DOT - Dan Smith
• Minnesota DOT - Michelle Moser
• Minnesota DOT - Ted Ulven
• Neaera Consulting - Tony English
• New York State Office of Information Technology Services - Frank Winters
• Noblis - Justin Anderson
• North Carolina DOT - Kelly Wells
• Ohio DOT - Michael Meeks
• Oregon DOT - Chad Mann
• Oregon DOT - Justin King
• Panasonic - Lauren Cordova
• Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada - Eneliko Mulokozi
• Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada - Theresa Gaisser
• Road Infrastructure - Paul Carlson
• Seattle DOT - Craig Moore
• South Dakota DOT - Christina Bennett
• Southwest Research Institute - Lynne Randolph
• Southwest Research Institute - Sabrina Mosher
• Spokane Transit Authority - Mike Hills
• St. Charles County - Amanda Brauer
• St. Charles County - Jake Becher
• Telenav - Daniel Pomian
• Texas DOT - James Kuhr
• Texas DOT - Jianming Ma
• TomTom - Rob Hoyler
• Trihydro - Shane Zumpf
• University of Missouri - Praveen Edara
• University of Wisconsin-Madison - Steven Parker
• USDOT - Amy Nelson
• USDOT - Deborah Curtis
• USDOT - Jawad Paracha
• USDOT - John Harding
• USDOT - Martha Kapitanvov
• USDOT - Steve Sill
• USDOT - Todd Peterson
• USDOT/FGDC - Derald Dudley
• Utah DOT - Chuck Felice
• Ver-Mac - Pier Castonguay
• Ver-Mac - Serge Beaudry
• Virginia Tech Transportation Institute - Tammy Trimble
• Volpe - Mark Mockett
• Volpe - Wesley Alford
• Wanco Inc. - Frank Zucco
• Washington State DOT - Tom Stidham
• Washington State DOT - Tony Leingang
• Wisconsin DOT - Erin Schwark
• Woolpert - Qassim Abdullah

The slides from this meeting are available here.

The recording of this meeting is available here.

Purpose:

• Provide updates on the WZDWG Subgroups’ progress in working towards publication of WZDx Specification v3.1 over the past six months
• Facilitate discussion on the near-term action items for the WZDWG membership, including new and existing subgroups being proposed for the next development cycle
• Learn about the WZDx Demonstration Grant recipients

Intended Outcomes:

• Review and vote on proposed changes for inclusion in v3.1 of the WZDx Specification
• Solicit interest in subgroups and co-chairs for the next specification development cycle

Agenda:

• Sign-in and Welcome –WZDWG Co-Chairs
• Specification Update Subgroup Report-Out – Spec. Update Subgroup Co-Chairs
• Technical Assistance Subgroup Report-Out – TA Subgroup Co-Chairs
• Worker Presence Subgroup Report-Out – WP Subgroup Co-Chairs
• Scheduled Break
• Near-Term Action Items for the WZDWG – WZDWG Co-Chairs
• WZDx Demonstration Grants –Todd Peterson (FHWA)
• Announcements & Next Steps –WZDWG Co-Chairs

Discussion Summary:

Sign-in and Welcome – WZDWG Co-Chairs:

• Nate Deshmukh-Towery opened the meeting and went through the housekeeping/agenda items, along with the 2 initial polling questions.

Specification Update Subgroup Report-Out – Spec. Update Subgroup Co-Chairs:

• Derald Dudley started the section, covering updates over the past 6 months, the subgroup’s activities and milestones that led up to the WZDWG meeting, and the first pull request (PR) - PR #157 – Add license property to RoadEventFeedInfo.
  • WZDWG membership/meeting attendees didn't have any comments or feedback on PR #157.
• Jacob Brady then detailed PRs #145, #146, #147, #148, and #150.
  • WZDWG membership/meeting attendees didn't have any comments or feedback on PRs #145, #146, #148, or #150.
  • Re: PR #147 – Refactor LaneType Enumeration:
    • Lynne Randolph: So, the lane enumeration is changing? or just deprecating values in it? Worried about backwards compatibility if you're removing some.
      • Jacob Brady - they are just being deprecated (not being removed); the lane enumeration is not changing.
      • Jacob Brady - Please see Issue #153 which discusses deprecating lane_number.
    • Michael Schnuerle - For the bbox field, is it defined how this should be used? E.g., is it a simple rectangle squared with lat/long coordinates, and completely surrounding the geographic elements, or could it be a polygon that specifies a certain area of influence to be highlighted with bbox?
      • Derald Dudley: the bbox is a rectangle, see here.
    • Michael Schnuerle - Hi Derald. Is the rectangle aligned with edges at 0, 90, 180, 270, or is rotation allowed? Must it exactly include all geometries associated with it?
      • Derald Dudley- Hey Michael, the spec says edges must follow lines of constant longitude, latitude, and elevation. I think rotation is allowed.
      • Derald Dudley - there will be one bounding box per feed.
    • Jacob Brady - the URL linked by Derald above is to the section of the GeoJSON spec regarding the Bounding Box.
    • Frank Winters - Was the NENA standard considered for road names? That standard will be followed by most State road data sets.
      • Jacob Brady - Frank, from the input we got from producers and consumers so far, there was not apparent consensus on how to format the road name, so we didn't opt to restrict it to a specific format yet/for this release. We will definitely discuss it going forward.
      • Derald W Dudley - Frank, NENA was not considered. The update subgroup can look at it in future cycles.
    • Tony English - is the poly line supported now for the lane (or is this still only at the road level)?
      • Derald W Dudley - Tony, geometries are at the segment level. Update subgroup is aware that lane level geometries will likely be needed.
• Craig Moore then detailed PR#152 – Local Access Only.
  • WZDWG membership/meeting attendees didn't have any comments or feedback on PR #157.
  • A related business rule will be discussed in the Technical Assistance Subgroup report-out.
• Skylar Knickerbocker detailed WZDx feed examples, both LineString and MultiPoint, that represent a variety of common scenarios when creating road events.
  • Skylar reviewed the “Scenario 1 Example – Detailed Lane”, the components of a TTC Zone and example, conformant code.
    • Mariah Lynch - thank you SO MUCH for these examples.
  • David Craig went over the WZDx Roadmap – how we’ve been adding road-level information within the WZDx Specification, but still supporting lane-level precision with a flexible adoption approach.
    • David Craig - We’re evolving to a lane-level specification, WZDx is not just a road-level specification, I am trying to clear up the misunderstanding about this reduction/connotation of the specification.
  • David detailed the future issues the Spec. Update Subgroup will tackle next development cycle (e.g., how to handle recurrent events).
    • Lynne Randolph - +1 vote for recurrent events.
    • Sabrina Mosher - I agree.
    • Jacob Brady - the discussion on recurrent events can be found here.

Technical Assistance Subgroup Report-Out – TA Subgroup Co-Chairs:

• Curtis Hay detailed the introductory slides to the section – subgroup mission statement, agenda for the report-out, etc.
  • The TA Subgroup's main aim is to really help out those implementing the WZDx Specification, offering commensurate solutions to their implementation pain points.
• Shane Zumpf went over the Business Rules that the Technical Assistance Subgroup has put together – both the existing rules, and the new ones, resulting out of this development cycle.
• Chuck Felice detailed the working group publications that the Technical Assistance Subgroup has put together – the Early Adopters’ Guide and IOO Self-Validation Checklist.
• Chuck Felice also detailed the issues the subgroup will tackle in its next re-chartering over the subsequent six months.
  • Faisal Saleem - with regards to "Creating a Document to Facilitate Institutional Buy-In" (one of the subgroups’ activities in the next cycle) - to continue make the case, we may need a short video showcasing GM and others to highlight the need here.
  • Tony English - we do have an open source RSM to WZDx 3.0 translator.
  • Ashley Nylen - RE: facilitating institutional buy-in, we here at CDOT had a succinct memo/roadmap approach that we used when approaching leadership. Would be happy to contribute that language in the document.
    • ACTION ITEM: Nate Deshmukh Towery (USDOT): Ashley and Tony - both of those sound like excellent resources that we'd love to share with the community. I'll follow up with you after this meeting for them.
    • Tony English - great, would love to the translator was done for Deb Curtis at TFHRC and is now being extended to CARMA cloud for ADS.

Worker Presence Subgroup Report-Out – WP Subgroup Co-Chairs:

• Kristin Virshbo opened the section by reviewing the subgroup’s introductory slides, purpose, objectives, agenda for today, etc.
  • Kristin Virshbo then detailed the worker presence survey goals and method.
    • E.g., how stakeholders are defining worker presence, takeaways from IOO survey respondents (part of Survey Track A), etc.
• Serge Beaudry detailed takeaways of Survey Track B, including takeaways from the equipment provider respondents.
  • Also detailed privacy, ethics, and liability takeaways from the survey.
• Luke Urie detailed respondents’ work zone data uses, data consumer respondent takeaways, and the emphasis on timeliness and accuracy (of worker presence data reporting) that was surmised from the survey analysis.
  • Mark Mockett - the Survey Report can be found here.
  • David Aylesworth - It seems there's a fine line between a mobile device and wearable gps, so interesting to see the difference in how they're perceived.
    • Kris Milster - David, yeah that is an interesting point. Is it a perception of a device or is it due to function (e.g., does that fact that a safety vest is not "smart" cause issues?)?

Scheduled Break

Near-Term Action Items for the Membership – WZDWG Co-Chairs:

• David Craig reviewed the pull request voting timeline and procedure.
  • Benajmin Acimovic - How do we confirm who votes for a specific organization?
  • Mahsa Ettefagh - Ben, once you decide among your own organization, you can email the name of the voting member to avdx@dot.gov. This person should cast a vote on the Survey Monkey link which will be sent out after this meeting.
• David reviewed the scope and objectives/benefits for the three existing WZDWG Subgroups being proposed for the next development cycle.
• Nate reviewed the scope and objectives/benefits for the two new WZDWG Subgroups being proposed for the next development cycle

WZDx Demonstration Grants - Todd Peterson (FHWA):

• Todd Peterson reviewed the WZDx Demonstration Grant recipients and the overall goal of FHWA’s grant program – i.e., addressing travel management issues on behalf of both the travelers and the agencies.
  • Kelly Wells - how many applications did you get?
    • Todd - we received 29 applications.
  • Jorge Uy - Will a 2021 WZDx Demonstration Grant be offered?
    • Todd - that would be great, definitely an aspiration, but I'm unsure of that at this time.

Announcements & Next Steps – WZDWG Co-Chairs:

• Nate Deshmukh-Towery and David Craig reviewed the WZDx Demonstration Grant recipients and the overall goal of FHWA’s grant program – i.e., addressing travel management issues on behalf of both travelers and agencies.
• Live Retrospective - feedback on today's WZDWG meeting?
  • Lynne Randolph - Real, live (in-person) meetings in the future, when you're able to again.
  • Kelly Wells - our biggest challenge: limited traveler info resources and many opportunities to improve traveler info; that's why the grant would have been so great.
  • Jacob Brady - As for suggestions for expanding/refining the WZDx spec, commenting here and replying the polling question is great, but to ensure comments get addressed, please visit the WZDx GitHub page and create a new issue.
  • Faisal Saleem - It may be helpful to have agency peer-peer information exchange on internal processes.
  • Ross Sheckler - consider if we should put emphasis on getting a fully populated feed up and running? Or should the emphasis be on getting a larger number of work zones with the minimum data (location and time)?
  • Kelly Wells - get involved with Eastern Transportation Coalition (renamed to the I-95 coalition). I can recommend a presentation at a forthcoming traveler info event.
    • ACTION ITEM: Follow up with Kelly Wells for more information on the forthcoming presentation/traveler info event.
  • Tony English - We should get a nationwide feed for wzdx 3.x
    • Shane Zumpf - Thanks Tony, please look into the Situation Data Exchange (SDX) setup specifically for that reason.
  • Sinclair Stolle - Are there examples of where these data feeds are being used?
    • Nate Deshmukh Towery - Sinclair Stolle - that's one of the things that the Technical Assistance Subgroup is looking into in the next cycle.
  • Marysa Myers - Aurora Innovation: Will we be able to attend the GIS-T workshop in April to see the real world applications of the WZDx Data?
    • ACTION ITEM: Follow up with Marysa Myers to answer her questions regarding the April 2021 GIS-T workshop.

Polling - Questions and Responses Received During the Meeting:

• Poll #1: Who is in the audience today?

  • State/Local DOT - ITS/Operations: 32.7%
  • Software Developer: 12.2%
  • U.S. DOT: 10.2%
  • Contractor: 8.2%
  • State/Local DOT - Geospatial Office: 6.1%
  • Academia/Researcher: 6.1%
  • Other: 6.1%
  • State/Local DOT - Maintenance and Construction Staff: 4.1%
  • Digital Map Developer: 4.1%
  • Standards Developer: 4.1%
  • Data Provider / Data Broker: 2.0%
  • Automated Vehicle Developer: 2.0%
  • Automotive Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM): 2.0%
  • Work Zone Workers/Managers: 0%

• Poll #2: Is this your first time attending a WZDWG meeting?

  • No: 68.0%
  • Yes: 32.0%

• Poll #3: What other features, spatial or non-spatial, would you like to see included in the specification? (all responses)

  • Add more road event types such as special events.
  • Signalized vs. un-signalized railroad crossings
  • Whether architectural changes (> 1 meter) are being made for the specific work zone
  • No further request
  • Lane-level geometry, where available
  • Bridge Clearance
  • Lateral clearance
  • Do not block driveway areas
  • Smart Arrow board lane closure location and direction
  • Geometries at the lane-level rather than only at segment-level
  • Dynamic - real-time data from field devices
  • Truck Restrictions for detours
  • Lane-level geometry

• Poll #4: Please select all items that you would find valuable in a document designed to facilitate institutional buy-in.

  • Data use-cases: 39.6%
  • List of committed organizations: 18.9%
  • Crucial role in reducing fatalities: 15.1%
  • Impact on congestion of roadways: 15.1%
  • Testimonials: 5.7%
  • Unique value proposition: 5.7%

• Poll #5: What format would make an institutional buy-in document the most effective or useful?

  • PowerPoint: 45.5%
  • Executive Summary: 36.4%
  • Video: 12.1%
  • Webpage (GitHub Readme): 3.0%
  • Webinar: 3.0%

• Poll #6: Which of the group's next three priorities are you most enthusiastic about? (select all that apply)

  • Engaging with data producers and users: 44.2%
  • Common terminology about worker presence: 37.2%
  • Updating the WZDx Specification: 18.6%

• Poll #7: What topics or groups (if any) did we miss in the Worker Presence survey? Any other feedback?

  • Require one response per agency
  • In a given agency, what office is responsible for the definition of 'worker present'?
  • Manufacturers who produce traffic control devices that are connected and that can push out work zone data
  • Short-term daily (shift-based) work zone setups and the long-term permanent work zones
  • Something that randomizes worker identity but sends signals of presence
  • Work zone speed limits
  • Traffic control companies: I am sure they were surveyed, but where they defined/broken out?
  • Budgets
  • I think there needs to be a differentiation between workers behind a physical barrier and workers not behind a physical barrier. work zone intrusions
  • Perception of impact to worker safety through these data
  • Difference between a short-term dynamic work area and a longer term multi month/year construction area
  • Vis-a-vis traffic controls dependent on worker presence (e.g. speed limits in effect "when workers present")
  • Speed limits
  • Re: what workers are comfortable with for tracking, what about ITS cameras/sensors?

Update

• Final Voting results for version 3.1 proposed changes are listed below. All changes received minimum required votes.

Organization	POC Name	License PR	bbox PR	event id PR	lane type PR	total num lanes PR	road names PR	local access PR
Wisconsin University	Yang Cheng	Neutral	Neutral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Neutral
Maryland DOT State Highway Administration	Hua Xiang	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
CeVe	David Aylesworth	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mapbox	Mikel Maron	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
USDOT	Derald Dudley	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ver-Mac	Serge Beaudry	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Castle Rock Associates	Kristin Virshbo	Neutral	Yes	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral	Yes	Yes
Telenav	Daniel Pomian	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
MTC	Nisar Ahmed	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
General Motors	David Craig	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
City of Harrisburg		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Iowa State University	Skylar Knickerbocker	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Seattle DOT	Craig Moore	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
IBI Group	Jacob Brady	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Colorado DOT	Benjamin Acimovic	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Texas DOT	Joe Hunt	Neutral		Neutral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Penn DOT	Daniel Farley	Neutral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency	Muyi Zhou	Yes	Yes	Neutral	Yes	Neutral	Yes	Yes
Iowa DOT	Sinclair Stolle	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Trihydro Corporation	Shane Zumpf	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
SWRI	Sabrina Mosher	Neutral	Neutral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Neutral
WSDOT	Tony Leingang	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Neutral	Yes
Utah DOT		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Panasonic	Lauren Cordova	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral
Austin Transportation Department	Luke Urie	Neutral	Neutral	Yes	Yes	Neutral	Yes	Neutral