-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 232
Web conference notes, 2022.09.15 (MDS Working Group)
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:
22 Attendees
Main Topics
- Delivery Mode deep dive
- discuss a draft of the new Delivery Robot mode and solicit feedback from Working Group
- Delivery draft PR #787 by Tristan at Blue Systems with Kiwibot.
- Delivery Robots draft feature branch based on PR #787 but limited to robots only
- Issue #782
- See prior meeting on delivery robots for slides, recording, and notes
- Slide Presentation
-
Meeting Recording - Password:
s2$33ShQ
Part of Modes Month.
WGSC Meeting Organizers
- Host: Steve Brining, Blue Systems
- Facilitator: Michael Schnuerle, OMF
- Outreach: Michael Schnuerle, OMF
- Note taker: Nivedya Madankara Kottayi, SANDAG
- Switch the events in the slide -DELIVERY ROBOTS: NEW STATES AND EVENTS
- May change "Trip_stop" to "Trip pause"
Welcome by Steve Brining (Blue Systems)
New member:
- John Brazil, City of San Jose
- Jacob Sherman -- Portland DOT
Housekeeping from Angela Giacchetti:
- ITS World Congress, next week
Presentation: MDS modes month Delivery Robots mode adding MDS 2.0,
Agenda: Overview oof modes
Michael Schnuerle: Topic is delivery robots deep drive. September is MDS 2.0 modes month. Specific recommendation for the 2.0 release. In October for wrap and discuss the gaps.
Delivery robots:
Discussed a month ago, what kind of uses cases is needed for delivery robots
Have no human driver or passenger on board, an have multiple good deliveries on different trips
-
Use cases and data
-
Discussion area -- If you are an operator for an agency, a government agency, or a software/hardware service provider in the delivery robot space, please leave your detailed use cases here as a comment.
-
Meeting today incorporates DDOT and Blue Systems/San Jose use case comments
-
First things is how deep do we have to go with delivery robots. Each come with privacy, complexity, and rider information
-
Rebalancing scooters-- how to control remotely, not delivering except the scooter itself
-
It is covered in MDS
-
Delivery Robots (DR)-- Small goods delivery. Sidewalk/street. Remotely piloted/autonomous. eg kiwiot, this is our focus for 2.0, we did round table, and some learning
-
APV (Autonomous Passenger Vehicles) This is kind of covered under Passenger Service mode work
-
FGF (Food, Goods, Freight) delivery -- Moving goods. On street. Varied vehicle types. Contract or full-time driver eg. Fedex, Doordash
-
Passenger services (PS) -- complexity and privacy issues multiple humans involved and covered by PS mode
-
Gray areas are APV and FGF delivery
-
Consensus: Delivery is the focus, and other areas could be tackled next release
-
Two areas of work - main work done by Tristen from Blue Systems via Kiwiboat and San Jose
-
Delivery to all forms
-
Take his pull request and just DR referring to autonomous driven goods
We need a consensus from the WG and SC
TC: Include other forms, since same type of data, work with other operators, no complexity is added, easy to widen the scope and allowing operators to keep sending the data
MS: When you get to Amazon, door dash, some of the info in the PS about the drivers, need to at least acknowledge it is a driver and some info about the driver. Already jurisdictions have authority to collect the info. For delivery it is much similar, different from remotely driven vehicle
Jacob Sherman: there is no regulatory authority, and that field can be optional, some operation can keep fields as options. There might not be diff in functionally, PS and DR. may return different fields. Boarder delivery focus than focusing on robot delivery. Lot of cities interested in this space and might an opportunity there.
Meg Young: Some cities require DL to operate this. Some cities require someone to operate and then it becomes autonomous. What operator assigned if they check in regularly.
MS: Some cities may want to know who the driver is, if it is robots only, it is a good decision to have
MY: Driver assigned/not assigned what other info is gathered from this
MS: part of the question, I don't know the use cases, what data to be collected or
Real world exp already using MDS to fulfill the needs of the modes
We need to do that to expand. May be push the release back more, good delivery generic space
Who has authority to regulate - we don't have an answer for that
MM: DR and PS is done in pilot cities,
Can ask Vendors -- alpha version, as a pilot study
MS: Work will still happen; it is visible, and City can look at that and work on it later than taking a decision now
Vladimir G: DR incident where there was yellow tape passing, call the company and ask about the driver and history, Struggle is it open the security reasons, so we need tracking, human way is by putting some IDs
MS: Remote operator identifier
Scope of work: id we get into FGF delivery, and it is creating like some mode which covers everything. we can have optional field for passenger. If that is route and it is duplicating PS. Confusing where the lines are. Don't want to get to it right now. Probably delaying the release. Separate call or email. Feel free object. Continue work on it, more participants, and more use cases
Slide: What is in MDS and what is not possible now
With MDS policy req juris can society which fields are necessary, optional or don't want etc. for testing out new modes or due to privacy concerns. This is a feature in MDS
Trip types of list in the slide. Do you see any gaps in the list:
New states are added. Instead of trip stop or trip pause
Peter Panov definition about the event in slide.
TC: Whether robots go to restaurant to deliver for food and stops for the food order. Drop off, wait for the customer for the pickup
MS; trip attributes:
Does not include info about if device is loaded or unloaded, or anything about the category of cargo, or contents of cargo. More about the kind of trip or if it has in it or not.
Meg: From regulatory standpoint, good to know loaded or unloaded.
MS: maybe one can infer
PP: If the delivery cancels and brings back to home base.
MS: incident where the goods were stolen,
JS: may be the operator could report back and need not represented in the data
MY: Need no details
MS: propose not having any info about the things in it
Fare attributes:
JS; this is the price the consumer will pay or is this regulatory surcharges or taxes
MS: There are some fields in the MDS:
Info about the std cost, this is the link https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/tree/feature-modes-delivery-robots/provider#trips
We had 10 payment attributes added in a mode, may be overall cost and have optional for if the jurisdictions needed that
JS: we do not have in the ROW, having it optional reg surcharges
MS: For PS, an exhaustive list. HHs to be added can be added as an comment
VG: in LA - Special operation zone or equity zones
Vehicle attributes:
Does not include info required in some jurisdictions now about fully autonomous, remotely driven, camera locations, wheels, size, weight, height, battery, etc. But that is required in some jurisdictions. Some can point it out as the comment and can be officially added.
Jacob Sherman: these attributes are looked once, may not be included every time, for every vehicle.
MS; It may be specified for trip start
MM; That info can move around
MS; good point, It will not be redundant and can be looked up for that vehicle
Accessibility: Audio visual cues, or opened remotely, debates can go this fields. If you have scenarios, thinks about commenting
Discussion starters in the round table, need feedback
No info about that in the spec reg package and cargo details
Steve Brining: what about alcohol
Camilo C: company deliver alcohol, match and identify if the age is above 21yr old. We need regulation for that.
MS: How to confirm. It is a tricky problem
CC: we are the middlemen but who is responsible
MS: how will these work for delivery. Not sure
VG: We restricted in downtown, medicine deliver can have policy priority, operator can make the communication about the delivery. It needs to be added as the field comes along with the trip
Schedule and next steps:
Leave our comments, spend some time in the area#782
https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/issues/782
Closing thoughts
From chat:
Camilo Cabrera: In case someone's interested, this is the case that was mentioned before about a robot crossing by the police yellow line: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CihlgOkjUUI
Jacob Sherman:"Age restricted items"... but I'm also not sure how that data is used/why its used
Peter Panov (Lacuna): Instacart makes deliveries of alcohol.
Jacob Sherman: GoPuff too
Camilo Cabrera: Do instacart or gopuff have any protocol to validate age?
Alex Demisch: GoPuff checks ID at delivery
MDS Links
Working Groups
2.1.0 Release
0.4.1 Release Planning Meetings