[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ecrit] [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location in a PIDF-LO
Hannes is right to point out that it is better to be clear than to
assume.
PIDF-LO has already has had capability of providing multiple locations -
even more than 2. If there is a label 'derived', for one of them, there
needs to be a identifier that points back to the original. This is
better than guessing.
-roger marshall.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org
> [mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Berryman
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 6:57 AM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: geopriv at ietf.org; ecrit at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location
> in a PIDF-LO
>
> As long as it clearly noted that the location is derived from
> geodetic then I am fine. How to indicate? Provide both
> geodetic and derived. If geodetic is provided then one can
> safely assume the provided civic is derived (I would hope).
>
> Marc B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:14 AM
> To: Marc Berryman
> Cc: Winterbottom, James; geopriv at ietf.org; ecrit at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location
> in a PIDF-LO
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> I agree with you that re-coding isn't the ideal solution.
> Now, the question is: What do we do when someone still does
> it? We are not the deployment police.
> Should we indicate the fact that re-coding has happened? How
> should we indicate it?
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> Marc Berryman wrote:
> >
> > I see very real issues with deriving a civic location from
> a geodetic
> > location, when wireless geodetic locations became widely available
> > this "reverse geocoding" caused many problems. Personally I see no
> > value but many issues that can come about from a derived civic
> location.
> >
> > I will try to expand on these issues (while not being able to draw
> > pictures to illustrate) from a "Lessons Learned" aspect.
> >
> > 1.) Geodetic location comes in and a civic location is derived from
> > the nearest know civic location, but the geodetic location
> is centered
>
> > on a building in a large campus or a large apartment building. The
> > nearest civic location is the entrance to the large campus or
> > apartment complex, so you have lost desirable information
> of the more
> > precise location in favor of the civic location given to
> the campus or
>
> > apartment building.
> >
> > 2.) Same scenario as above, but this time the nearest civic
> location
> > is NOT the same as the civic location provided to the apartment
> > complex or campus. The nearest civic location is provided and a
> > delayed response is caused by providing the incorrect civic
> location.
> >
> > 3.) A geodetic location come in from a boat in the lake, river, or
> > bay. The derived civic location is a home on the lake,
> river, or bay.
> > Delayed response due to incorrect location being provided.
> >
> > 4.) Vehicle on interstate highway (limited access highway) provides
> > geodetic location, derived civic location is along the
> highway but a
> > delayed response takes place because not only is the civic location
> > derived incorrect but the responding agency has to drive
> miles to gain
>
> > access to the limited access highway when the correct responding
> > agency is near the access point of the limited access highway.
> >
> > I could and can go on and on on scenarios that can (and
> have) occurred
>
> > due to derived locations, but let me put forth another
> consideration.
> >
> > The service providing the derived location is using a
> spatial dataset,
>
> > but it is not being maintained to the same level as the
> spatial data
> > being used at the PSAP, out of date information is passed
> to the PSAP
> > - LIBALITY ISSUE. We update our spatial data on a minute by minute
> > basis, with literaily hundreds of changes taking place each
> day. There
>
> > are just so many little differences that could exist between the
> > derived location and the actual location provided by a trained call
> > taker, that is familiar with the local geography, that this could
> > easily become a disaster and gain major news coverage that
> could deal
> > the industry and the confidence of the public a significant setback.
> >
> > Aside from these concerns I did notice a few gramatical
> > inconsistancies in the draft.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Marc B
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:31 AM
> > To: Winterbottom, James
> > Cc: geopriv at ietf.org; ecrit at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location in a
> PIDF-LO
> >
> > Sounds like a useful way to indicate the derived location
> >
> > Winterbottom, James wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-derived-loc-00
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Specifying Derived Location in a PIDF-LO
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Abstract
> >
> > >
> >
> > > This document describes how specify that a location in a
> PIDF-LO has
> >
> > > been derived or converted from a different location. The source
> >
> > > location may reside in the same PIDF-LO or be a remote document
> >
> > > referenced by a location URI and associated id fragement.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Feedback appreciated.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Cheers
> >
> > >
> >
> > > James
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ------------------------
> >
> > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may
> >
> > > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
> >
> > > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> >
> > > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
> >
> > > this email is prohibited.
> >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ------------------------
> >
> > > [mf2]
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > Geopriv mailing list
> >
> > > Geopriv at ietf.org
> >
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Geopriv mailing list
> >
> > Geopriv at ietf.org
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit