2021 10 01 Worker Presence Subgroup meeting - usdot-jpo-ode/wzdx GitHub Wiki
Meeting Information
October 1, 2021, 2:00-3:00pm EDT
Purpose
- Review and discuss proposed PR #206, which adds new Worker Presence data structures
Agenda
- Welcome and Sign-In
- PR #206 – New Worker Presence Data Structures
- Discussion
- Wrap Up
Minutes
PR #206
Current Worker Presence Property
| Property | Type | Description | Conformance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| workers_present | Boolean (true/false) | A flag indicating that there are workers present in the road event | Optional |
Pseudocode example:
**Work zone 1**
Road name: I-35 `
Direction: southbound `
Lanes present: 4 `
Estimated start date: 6.6.2021 at 4 am `
Estimated end date: 6.6.2021 at 10 pm `
Status: active `
Workers present: true`
Proposed Worker Presence Object
| Property | Type | Description | Conformance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
are_workers_present |
Boolean | Whether workers are present in the work zone event area. This value should be set in accordance with the definition provided in the definitionproperty if it is provided. |
Required | |
definition |
Array; [WorkerPresenceDefinition] | A list of situations in which workers are considered to be present in the jurisdiction of the data provider. | Optional | |
source |
WorkerPresenceSource | Data source providing information on whether workers are present in the work zone event area. | Optional | |
worker_presence_last_confirmed_date |
String; date-time | Date and time at which the presence of workers was last confirmed using the source. |
Optional | All datetime formats shall follow RFC 3339 Section 5.6. |
confidence |
WorkerPresenceConfidence | The data producer’s confidence in workers being present in the work zone event area at the time of feed publication. | Optional |
Pseudocode Example:
**Work Zone 1**
Road name: I-35
Direction: southbound
Lanes present: 4
Estimated start date: 6.6.2021 at 4 am
Estimated end date: 6.6.2021 at 10 pm
Status: active
Worker presence:
Are workers present: true
Source: mobile app
WP last confirmed date: 6.6.2021 at 5:12 am
Confidence: high
Definition:
humans physically in work zone
mobile equipment moving in work zone
New Enumerated Types
The proposed worker_presence_definition property would be an optional property in the WorkerPresence object.
List one or more situations when workers are considered present in your jurisdiction from the values in this list:
√ Humans physically working within the work zone
√ Humans physically within the work zone but not working
√ Mobile equipment in the work zone that is moving
□ A barrier wall in place within the clear zone
□ A barrier wall in place within the edge lines
□ A barrier wall in place within the right of way
□ Fixed equipment in the work zone
□ Mobile equipment in the work zone but not moving
The proposed source property would be an optional field in the WorkerPresence object used to indicate how a data provider knows whether workers are present.
□ Camera-based monitoring
□ Presence of smart arrow board
□ Presence of smart traffic cones
□ Presence of maintenance vehicles
□ Presence of smart wearables
√ Worker check in via mobile app
□ Automated worker check-in mobile device
□ Worker check in via phone or radio call
□ Scheduled
The proposed optional confidence property would reflect the data producer’s confidence in whether workers are present/not present as reported using the are_workers_present property.
Previously this property was presented as a numerical score between 0 and 10, but there was not a clear way to distinguish between each number.
□ low
□ medium
□ high
Discussion
Jacob – Requested clarification on how the confidence score ties to last confirmed date. Does this mean that the confidence score represents the moment the last confirmed date was updated?
- Serge – Noted that this is correct and having both allow for more organizations to use the Worker Presence field.
Dan Sprengeler – Noted that in his work with other connected devices there is often a periodic “health check”. This could be a smart vest asking a worker to verify if they are still working after a certain time interval.
- Kristin – Noted that the spec will include flexibility for organizations that don’t have technology this complex.
Navin Nageli – Praised the proposed approach.
Nate – Proposed piloting this in a small location to test its useability.
- Kristin – Noted that she is working with one (soon to be two) data producer and is planning to incorporate experimenting with the Worker Presence field.
- Serge – Noted that he would also like to try this within the next year. Additionally, at least one grant awardee expressed that they want to publish worker presence information.
Neil – Praised the work and its flexibility for organizations using different levels of technology. MA will try to build this into their v4.0 feed.
Navin – Posed the question of how to handle multiple sources for confirmation. Would you use the last known source?
- Serge – Agreed that would be a good approach.
Neil – Noted that his point was more about that different contractors using different technology.
Next Steps
- Subgroup members should comment on the GitHub pull request with any additional feedback
- Subgroup co-chairs will present the final PR at the WZDWG meeting in November and WZDWG members will vote on its inclusion in v4.0
- Data consumers who would like to share their input on worker presence data should reach out to Mark & the co-chairs
Reminder: The Work Zone Data Working Group semi-annual meeting is Wednesday November 3rd, 12:00-2:30pm EDT. If you have not received a calendar invite, please email [email protected]
Participants
| Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| *Luke Urie | Austin Transportation Department |
| *Kristin Virshbo | Castle Rock Associates |
| *Serge Beaudry | Ver-Mac |
| Nagham Matout | ATSSA |
| Mahsa Ettefagh | Booz Allen |
| Weimin Huang | HERE Technologies |
| Jacob Brady | IBI Group |
| Ross Sheckler | iCone |
| Dan Sprengeler | Iowa DOT |
| Walter Jones | Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of North America |
| Alexander Lemka | Maricopa County DOT |
| Neil Boudreau | Massachusetts DOT Highway Division |
| Merdith Nelson | Michigan DOT |
| Michelle Moser | Minnesota DOT |
| Navin Nageli | Navjoy |
| Hadrian Merced Hernandez | USDOT Volpe Center |
| Molly Behan | USDOT Volpe Center |
| Mark Mockett | USDOT Volpe Center |
| David Rush | Virginia DOT |
| Tony Leingang | Washington State DOT |
* Co-chair of Worker Presence Subgroup