UlfBj
commented
4 days ago Sergej provided this: The heavy vehicles often have a tachograph. There are different types of them, and the legislation is different in different parts of the world.
On the meeting we spoke about driver cards, they are connected to the drivers and carry data about driving and rest times, over speeding, etc. But the same data for all the vehicle drivers is stored in the tachograph itself. Because the tachograph is an equipment of the vehicle and in our tree we are trying to describe the vehicle, I think we need to have tachograph as a branch of the vehicle tree. This branch will be different depending on the tachograph type.
So yes, we will have data about drivers in the tree, but we should have the tachograph in the center and not the driver and his/her card. Tachograph stays in the vehicle while driver’s card moves between different vehicles.
Ok, now about the EU tachograph.
Here you can see the official EU document describing the tachograph (or shall we call it something more general, like “Data Recorder” or something like that?):
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002R1360#d1e25510-4-1
In Appendix 7 you will find all the communication protocols used to download information from the tachograph and from the driver’s card. There is a lot of data where so you can dig down to any data field.
I don’t know how much data we want to include in our tree, so I found this API example that can help us decide that. This is an API that transport companies can use to store and access data that their drivers have produced.
Vehicle Working Times and Vehicle Activities can be a good starting point, and we can look at driver’s data and add some of that too.
At the WG meeting June 17 a discussion was started on whether driver data should be represented as a branch in Tractor/Trailer trees, or whether it should be represented in a separate tree. Questions that may point to which structure to use: