• Every other week call at 11am PT / 2pm ET

https://zoom.us/j/627957166

Meeting ID: 627 957 166

One tap mobile:

• +16699006833,,627957166# US

Dial by phone:

• +1 929 436 2866 (US)

Find your local number

Add your own name, link, and organization during call

• Michael Schnuerle, OMF
• Mark Maxham, E&A/LADOT
• Kegan Maher
• Alex Demisch, SFMTA
• Jascha Franklin-Hodge, OMF
• Matt Davis, Populus
• Neil Goldader, E&A
• Josh Johnson, Spin
• ...

Discuss a few ideas for the 1.1.0 Release.

1. Discussion on how people are preparing for 1.0.0 Release, which release people are currently on
2. Metrics - #485 main, #556 street segments, PR #487 definitions, PR #486 spec
   • Overview of ideas
   • Metrics derived from MDS - total trips, trips per vehicle, unridden vehicles, distribution by geography
   • Metrics not derived from MDS - access method, membership type, payment type, demographics - see #569
   • Use cases from the community on the call
   • Make sure to support SAE's MDC doc. See this comment
3. Call for release ideas/proposals for your city/company in Github now.

Notes and or transcript of the call with presentation, document, GitHub links and calls to action.

• 1.0 Release

  • Provider 1.0 nearing approval - on agenda for next OMF Board meeting
  • Discussion around what people are looking forward to in 1.0.0 and when an upgrade might happen
    • Straw poll - what version are people are using?
    • A wide variety of versions are being used from 0.2, 0.3, to 0.4, with feedback from cities and 3rd parties.
    • Some features that appeal to the group are additional new vehicle states, vehicles endpoint in 0.4.1
    • LADOT planning 1.0.0 upgrade now, looking forward to Policy updates and Geography addition in 1.1.0
  • Michael shared a link to an upgrade guide to 1.0.0
    • Welcome feedback for other content the community would like to see here.

• Metrics API Discussion

  • Dirk presented a proposal on issue 569
    • This would allow reporting on data beyond what MDS provides, such as interest on usage of low-income/student plans. This would be data that only the Provider would be able to calculate but avoids privacy issues by not sharing the underlying data to calculate these metrics through MDS.
    • These special groups could be defined in the spec, with the option of other special groups definable between a city and a provider.
    • Timeframe and geography would need to be further defined. These should not be so granular that individuals could be identified. Could use Geography API to define areas and start, end, traversal. Time could be day, week, month.
    • k-anonymity values would be key (eg, 5, 10), where a minimum value would have to be returned or else no data is shown.
    • There is likely a common list of these "special group" metrics across cities, but there would need to be room for flexibility to support additional metrics. Having a standard would provide that flexibility.
  • Sean discussed the proposal on issue #485 that involves calculating summary metrics to ensure both cities and providers are aligned and use common methodologies.
    • Issue 486 was written prior to the MDC proposal. A more thorough analysis of the MDC proposal would be needed. Jascha and Sean will reach out to MDC. Try to cover existing metrics out there in specs where relevant: SharedStreets, SAE/MDC, NUMO
    • Need to determine whether that calculation methodologies themselves are part of the spec.
    • Metrics are useful if 1) we create a flexible framework and 2) define the metrics
    • Could have Core Metrics defined in the spec that are more universal, easy and agreed upon, and Supplemental Metrics in a doc/guide external to the spec that are more optional or variable.
  • Consolidate discussion on Metrics API in issue #485 or #569

• Mentioned the idea of a 'Policy API but for Providers' where providers could publish their 'policy' back to the city, eg staging areas, drop off locations, fee structures, etc.