Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
0 recomendaciones•118 vistas
Presentation given at the ITS World Congress 2018
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains
Similar a Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains (20)
Último
Último (20)
Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains
- 1. EXPERIENCES AND CHALLENGES WITH STANDARDS FOR LOCATION REFERENCING FROM THE GIS AND ITS DOMAINS Knut Jetlund Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norwegian Public Roads Administration 1
- 2. Mapping Mapping Mapping Rules Decissions PART OF THE INFORMATION FLOW IN ITS Road users Vehicles collecting information from sensors Pedestrians with mobile devices Information sources Commercial Map providers Road authorities Mapping agencies Base maps Authoritative information Car manufacturers Events Events and changes Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains 2 Maps
- 3. RESEARCH SCOPE Road users Information sources Commercial Map providers Car manufacturers Road authorities Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains 3 Static Information: Speed limits, weight restrictions, turn restrictions etc. Dynamic Information: Planned road works, closures etc. Map updates: Road Network and surrounding environment The contribution of standards to the information flow from road authorities to road users
- 4. STANDARDIZATION ACTORS 4 Domain Scope GIS ITS BIM Official International Standards ISO/TC 211 ISO/TC 204 ISO/TC 59 SC 13 Official European Standards CEN/TC 287 CEN/TC 278 ETSI TC ITS European regulations INSPIRE Industry/consortiums OGC C2C-CC TomTom NDS buildingSmart Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains
- 5. INFORMATION MODELLING APPROACHES ISO/TC 211 • MDA and one common UML Profile • ISO 19103 CSL • ISO 19109 Rules for Application Schema • ISO 19136 GML • ISO/TC 211 Harmonized UML Model ISO/TC 204 • Several formal and unformal UML Profiles • ISO 21219 TPEG2 UML Profile • ISO 14825 and 20524 GDF • ISO 17572 Location Referencing • No ISO/TC 204 Harmonized UML Model CEN/TC 278 • No common UML profile • EN 16157 DATEX II UML Profile • No CEN/TC 278 Harmonized UML Model • EN 16157 DATEX II UML Model • TN-ITS based on ISO19109 5Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains
- 6. LOCATION REFERENCING •ISO 19107, ISO 19111, ISO 6709Geometry •ISO 19112 •ISO 17572-2, e.g. RDS-TMC (ALERT-C) By Identifier •ISO 19148 Linear Referencing •ISO 17572-3 (AGORA-C) •TomTom OpenLR Dynamic •ISO 17572-4Lane-level Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains 6
- 7. EUROPEAN SPECIFICATIONS 7 INSPIRE Transport Networks • Linear Referencing TN-ITS • Geometry • By Identifiers • Linear Referencing • AGORA-C • OpenLR EN 16157 DATEX II • Geometry • By Identifiers • Linear Referencing • ALERT-C • OpenLR Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains
- 8. DISCUSSION • Development in silosSeveral actors • Different use of UML • Lack of harmonized models • Different exchange formats • Differences between models and implementation formats Information modelling principles • Different methods • Transformation and accuracy Location referencing Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains 8 Authoritative data maintained in ISO/TC 211 based systems • Example: TN-ITS and DATEX II Different services based on the same sources
- 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS Closer collaboration between actors Joint Task Force ISO TC 204 WG 3 and ISO/TC 211 WG 10 Common, harmonized UML models based on MDA Transformation of UML Profiles Common implementation formats derived from models GML, JSON, GeoPackage Linking models with Semantic Web technologies Location referencing transformations and accuracy Standards from other actors Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains 9
- 10. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING! Experiences and challenges with standards for location referencing from the GIS and ITS domains 10 Knut Jetlund PhD Student and Standardization expert Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norwegian Public Roads Administration knut.jetlund@vegvesen.no Twitter: @Jetgeo Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/KnutJetlund
Notas del editor
- Thank you.
- ITS equipment for road users depend on geospatial knowledge from a variety of sources, as illustrated in this figure: Commercial map providers and car manufacturers have created and delivered data sets for route planning and navigation for a long time, and are extending their products to support autonomous driving. On the road user side, new vehicles contain a range of sensors, and are able to create their own maps of the surroundings, and to share information directly with other road users and with map providers and car manufacturers. However, the road authorities that set navigation restrictions are the main authoritative source for legal navigation in the road network, as well as for possible and safe navigation based on events and conditions. And in addition, mapping agencies can provide updated base maps of the roads and the surrounding environment. The systems on the road user side will need to combine data from all these sources into the knowledge needed for legal and safe navigation. To achieve this, each source must provide information in a way that systems can understand and validate, both in terms of what the data represents, and of the location references provided. For this purpose, standardization and harmonization is a crucial element.
- Road authorities maintain what we can refer to as static information such as speed limits, weight restrictions, turn restrictions and other kinds of restrictions. Furthermore, they collect and share dynamic information about planned roadworks, closed roads due to weather or accidents and so on. Finally, the authorities are also likely to have geospatial information for new roads in CAD or BIM systems before the road opens, and also information for rural areas where fewer vehicles have travelled. To enable an unambiguous flow of information from road authorities to road users, the information and the flow must be standardized. The scope of this research is to study the contribution of standards to this information flow.
- To answer the research question, the first step is to identify the actors that are involved in such standardization, and next to identify which standards they have developed or are working on. Official International standardization of geospatial road-related information is mainly done by two committees within ISO: ISO/TC 211 – Geographic information/Geomatics, and ISO/TC 204 – Intelligent Transport Systems. Official European standards are developed by CEN and ETSI, with the CEN Technical Committee 278 responsible for standardization in the ITS domain. Also, the INSPIRE specifications that regulate the exchange of geospatial information in Europe are of relevance. I addition to ISO, CEN and ETSI, several industry actors and consortiums develop relevant standards, among them The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), Car-to-Car Communicational Consortium (C2C-CC), TomTom International, and Navigation Data Standards (NDS). Also, the standardization work in the BIM domain is of relevance, mainly the IFC standard developed by ISO/TC 59 SC 13 and buildingSmart. The research presented here is limited to the main official standards developed by ISO/TC 211, ISO/TC 204 and CEN/TC 278, while standards from other actors may be included in further research.
- An important foundation for interoperability between standards is a common way of modelling the real world. The most used language for information modelling is UML, developed by the Object Management Group. The OMG has also developed The Model Driven Architecture approach – known as MDA. The core of MDA is the development of conceptual models independent of specific implementations, where implementation models are derived from the conceptual models. The standardization work in ISO/TC 211 is based on MDA, with the foundation being the UML profile and modelling rules described in ISO 19103 and ISO 19109. Other ISO/TC 211 standards are based on ISO 19103, and the models are maintained in a common harmonized UML model, where concepts defined in one standard are reused in other standards. Implementation models are derived directly from the conceptual models, based on rules for conversion. This has been a successful approach for interoperable standards in the GIS domain, and the standards are widely adopted in applications and national and regional models, such as the INSPIRE data specifications. Comparing to the ITS domain, the ISO TPEG2 and CEN DATEX II series of standards are based on specific profiles of UML, and are to some degree also based on MDA. UML is used for modelling in several other ISO/TC 204 standards as well, such as GDF and Location referencing, but without any reference to a profile. Most important - there is no common UML Profile for all ISO/TC 204 and CEN/TC 278 standards, and there is no common harmonized UML model either.
- A single location in the real world, such as the location of a road link, a traffic sign, a speed limit or an accident may be described with different location references, based on different location referencing methods and location referencing systems. A pair or a triple of coordinates is not sufficient to identify a location; one will also need to know the location referencing method and the location referencing system that the location reference is within. The standards in the study describe several location referencing methods, with different usages, advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately, the terms ‘location’ and ‘location referencing’ are also defined in different manners in the standards. We do not have time here to go into the details, but the standardized methods include geometry – what we know as coordinates on a map, location by pre-coded identifiers, linear referencing along road links, and dynamic location referencing such as AGOROA-C and OpenLR. Also, a new standard for location referencing at lane level is under development, which will probably be important for autonomous driving.
- Looking into how the standardization approaches and location referencing is implemented in Europe, we see that the data specifications, the models and the exchange format specifications for INSPIRE themes are based on ISO/TC 211 standards. The specification for Transport Networks describes a multimodal transport network for road, rail, air and water transport, with a common model, and specified models for each transportation mode. The specification contains a network model where network properties are localized on the network elements with linear referencing based on the same concepts as ISO 19148. The scope of the TN-ITS specification is exchange of changes in road attributes. This specification is also based on ISO/TC 211 standards, and includes concepts from the DATEX II standard (on validity) and from ISO 14823 for traffic sign classification. Several location referencing methods are possible, and at least one is mandatory for each road feature. The DATEX II standard has its focus on dynamic data for traffic and travel. DATEX II is referred to from the European Commission as a preferred method for providing real-time information. DATEX II is not based on ISO/TC211 standards, it has its own UML Profile. Similar to TN-ITS, Datex II have several possible location referencing methods.
- As we have seen, several actors from the GIS and ITS domains have developed standards concerning geospatial road-related information. Many of the standards have been developed in separate silos, independently of more or less related and overlapping standards. The standards have been developed with different use of the UML modelling language, without reusing concepts already defined elsewhere, and without harmonizing with standards from other actors. The result is different conceptual models for the same real-world phenomena and different exchange formats. Also, differences between conceptual models and exchange formats have been identified within single standards such as GDF. The different location referencing methods is also a challenge and a possible source for errors, as they need to be transformed into a single understanding of the situation around the vehicle. Road and mapping authorities in many countries maintain road networks, restrictions and other geospatial information in systems based on standards for geographic information. The lack of harmonized and interoperable standards is challenging for reusing this information in the ITS domain, both for authorities providing information, and for the receivers. One practical example is the differences between TN-ITS and DATEX II, which often will be based on the same sources, but need to be implemented in different ways.
- The overall conclusion from this work is that the lack of cooperation and common modelling rules both between the domains and within the ITS domain has led to challenges for interoperability and information exchange. Six main recommendations have been identified: The need for a closer collaboration between actors. A JTF between ISO/TC 204 and ISO/TC 211 has been established and may improve this situation for future work on standardization, through a joint work for standards that touches both domains. Common UML models; It should be studied if it is possible to establish common information models for standards based on different UML profiles, through transformation between profiles or to a common profile And common implementation formats can be based on such harmonized models. A possible approach is to use Semantic web technologies to combine different information models as Linked Data. For location referencing, transformation methods between different location referencing methods is needed, and also accuracy reflections concerning the different methods and their use. Finally, this presentation has been limited to standards from ISO/TC 204, ISO/TC 211 and CEN/TC 278. There are also standards from other standardization actors where geospatial information is essential, and the research should be extended to include these standards as well.