MDS Working Group

• Every other Thursday at 9am PT, 12pm ET, 5/6pm CET

Zoom Registration Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAscOmhpjIuHNakPx6CNbACpjUjw1Gsucr4

One tap mobile: +19294362866,,84170989462#,,,,*612987# US (New York) - though we encourage Zoom

Note: Attendees register upon entry into the Zoom meeting. An attendee count will be posted here after the meeting:

29 attendees

Main Topics

• Kickoff - Michael Schnuerle, OMF
• Modes Architecture Task Force Update - Marie Maxham, Lacuna
  • Review latest pull request details and technical solution for implementing modes in general in MDS, splitting out micromobility into its own mode, and allowing space for other new modes to be added.
    • Pull Request - leave comments
    • Browsable spec changes
  • Refactoring work to be done to bring existing taxi work into passenger services - see PR
• Policy Reimagining Task Force - Jean Kao, Populus
  1. Policy In Practice FAQ - commit for comments/feedback - Marie Maxham, Lacuna
     • note this is now moved to governance repo
  2. Prioritization of Policies
  3. vehicle "heartbeat" - part of Unification work?
  4. Standardize lookback period
  5. Trip definition
• Unification Task Force - Marie Maxham
  • Defining Possible Options

WGSC Meeting Organizers

• Host: Michael Schnuerle, OMF
• Facilitator: Jean Kao, Populus
• Outreach: N/A
• Note taker: Sanjiv Nanda, SANGAG 🌟

1. Michael S: Moved Policy FAQ over to the OMF Governance repo and make a pull request (Done)
   • All: leave general and inline comments here: https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/governance/pull/11
2. Jean K: Seb and Jean will start working on items in the current ranking order. Will take simple fee structures into consideration, first.
3. All: Please leave comments in your own words, on the open questions:
   1. vehicle "heartbeat" (minimum, maximum time)
   2. Where does it sit - i.e., events or vehicles end point?
   3. What fields are used for heartbeat?
4. All: please comment on Agency/Provider reconciliation doc

• Modes Architecture Task Force Update - Marie Maxham, Lacuna presented

  1. Reviewed latest pull request details and technical solution for implementing modes in general in MDS, splitting out micromobility into its own mode, and allowing space for other new modes to be added.

  i. Also see the Modes planning document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzQl_EvrpiDWcJidmnKhn6bAlOdimEBo5u_Yx0BTfmk/edit#heading=h.qhpj5no5nfwe

  1. Refactoring Pull Request Marie walked through the PR and discussed the refactoring. Moved material the existing micromobility spec stuff is moved out of existing micromobility to separate our events, vehicle states, state machine.
  2. Taxi see PR Refactoring work is still to be done to bring existing taxi work into passenger services. Current taxi PR based on the work done by Lacuna for LADOT. Current version created by Neil G. Please consider this as work in progress, as mapping/adapting the taxi PR to the refactored spec is still to be done. i. Discussion on whether to rename this to Passenger Services? Discussion: strategically, should we leave it as taxi or rename?

• Policy Reimagining Task Force - Jean Kao, Populus

  1. Policy In Practice FAQ - Marie Maxham, Lacuna

     i. How do we track policy changes over time. How do we correct mistakes? What data is immutable and how do we manage immutability. Would like to expand this document to cover usage of Policy.

     ii. Main discussion topic at this point – how do we correct mistakes, even a typo? Or make changes based on what we observe in the field. Are we allowed to make retroactive changes? Can you update the previous policy, as long as it is done in “good faith”.

     iii. Discussion/feedback from cities:

     1. Hannah A.: We do agreements with providers when we make changes.
     2. Sharada S.: If there are corrections or clarifications, those updates are done, such as small adjustments to zones.
     3. Alex D: Similarly, small adjustments are done in discussion with providers.
     4. Michael S.: Do we want/plan to have more dynamic changes?
     5. Matt Davis: Retroactive dates can lead to confusion and needs some clarification.
     6. William: Can there be two policies active at the same time. Ans. No, no way.
     7. Josh: So far, all policy changes have involved formal process of communication with operators.
     8. Sharada: Is there a way to confirm that all companies have received a policy? That’s the reason I send an email asking for confirmation.
     9. Ans. No mechanism in MDS at this point.
     10. Matt: I’d prefer this not be in the wiki in order to facilitate this kind of discussion. I don’t think Github wiki’s have many facilities for comments. We need to find a better way?

     iv. Action (Michael S): WGSC discussion on whether this should be a wiki or some other method to develop and publish a Policy FAQ. FYI I moved this over to the OMF Governance repo and made a pull request, so please leave future general and inline comments there: https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/governance/pull/11

     v. Action (all): Please review, contribute and comment.

  2. Prioritization of Policies

     i. Jean K. presented. Ranking has been based on use/importance while keeping those that are simple to implement are rated higher. Generally, complex fee structures have been ranked lower.

     1. Hannah A.: Omaha has complex fee structure, and would like to rank fee tied to compliance to be included.

     ii. Action (Jean K.): Seb and I plan to start working in the current ranking order. Will take simple fee structures into consideration, first.

  3. vehicle "heartbeat"

     i. How can we incorporate a heartbeat in MDS? Discussion

     1. Emmett M.: Supportive. We really like this feature. 5-10 minutes is too quick. We do it every 30 minutes.
     2. Josh J.: Location is reported every 30 min. “I’m alive” much more frequent, but does not include a lot of data fields, such as location.
     3. Sharada S.: Like GBFS with a timestamp. Mitch Vars: Like GBFS – last updated field.

     ii. Discussion: (William H., Jean K., Michael S., Neil G., and others.

     1. Where would you like the heartbeat – in Events/States, or in Vehicles end point.
     2. William H.: Don’t want to use the heartbeat to detect event changes/location changes. Should not have to go to the Vehicles end point to reconstruct the vehicle events data.
     3. Neil G.: Is this a comms loss event. What is the timeout for a comms loss event? Should we have a bound on when the operator must report the event to the city?
     4. Heartbeat versus “comms loss” - do we need both, is one a replacement of the other? William sees this as a part of Agency/Provider unification, as Provider does not have a heartbeat that is available to cities.

     iii. Action (all): Please leave comments in your own words, on the open questions:

     1. Heartbeat interval (minimum, maximum).
     2. Where does it sit - i.e., events or vehicles end point? What field are included in heartbeat.
     3. Is it part of Agency/Provider reconciliation?
     4. Also, Michael S. has saved the chat log.

     iv. Also, please comment on Agency/Provider reconciliation doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19st5iquPKZ81aKDxiXZVFZUcEdruV8Hi1RWXsyn73NM/edit#heading=h.ukwib4461cox

  4. Did not discuss:

     i. Standardize lookback period

     ii. Trip definition

Relevant Chat log:

• Sharada Strasmore to Everyone (12:34 PM)
• Is there a way to confirm that all companies have received a policy? That’s the reason I send an email asking for confirmation
• Me to Everyone (12:34 PM)
• FYI: the FAQ commit content likely won’t be a PR, since it’s going into the wiki not the MDS spec, but the commit allows comments and feedback before the more final version is pulled back into the wiki page.
• Sharada Strasmore to Everyone (12:34 PM)
• ESP. In emergency situations
• Me to Everyone (12:36 PM)
• Good question Sharada, there is not way built into MDS that sends some kind of confirmation that they got the updated Policy activity. So external communication is needed.
• Matt Davis (Populus, he/him) to Everyone (12:36 PM)
• I’d prefer this not be in the wiki in order to facilitate this kind of discussion. I don’t think Github wiki’s have many facilities for comments.
• William Henderson (Ride Report, he/him) to Everyone (12:37 PM)
• +1
• [editor’s note: we may move it to the OMF governance repo]
• [talking about heartbeat]
• William Henderson (Ride Report, he/him) to Everyone (12:44 PM)
• It is contained in Agency, just not Provider
• Me to Everyone (12:45 PM)
• Provider does have last_event_time, but it’s meant for when an event changes.
• Neil Goldader (E&A) to Everyone (12:51 PM)
• It feels like this is trying to solve a data quality issue where events are not being sent accurately.
• Matt Davis (Populus, he/him) to Everyone (12:53 PM)
• No, for us this is more about wanting to be able to differentiate vehicles that are sitting idle from vehicles that have left the PROW without an event.
• William Henderson (Ride Report, he/him) to Everyone (1:00 PM)
• Not in Vehicles endpoint plz
• William Henderson (Ride Report, he/him) to Everyone (1:00 PM)
• Policy is designed around status, seems really problematic to have policy-impacted data outside of status
• Matt Davis (Populus, he/him) to Everyone (1:01 PM)
• Def needed in status changes, not sure about /vehicles
• William Henderson (Ride Report, he/him) to Everyone (1:01 PM)
• To clarify, I’m fine with it going in vehicles as long as it is not just there