usdot-jpo-ode / wzdx

The Work Zone Data Exchange (WZDx) Specification aims to make harmonized work zone data provided by infrastructure owners and operators (IOOs) available for third party use, making travel on public roads safer and more efficient through ubiquitous access to data on work zone activity.
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
92 stars 62 forks source link

Mobile work zone #351

Closed sknick-iastate closed 1 year ago

sknick-iastate commented 2 years ago

This pull request address the mobile work zone issue #125.

During the 4.1 release, a mobile work zone related road event option was added but didn't resolve the original issue of being able to identify a mobile work zone independently. The proposed changes adds an optional work_zone_type property to the WorkZoneRoadEvent object. This property will have the ability to identify if the work zone is static, moving, or a planned moving operation. If other work zone types which impact the operation of the work zone are identified in the future they can be added to this property.

At this point, the co-chairs recommend that this be a required property during the next major release. For now it will be an optional property to avoid breaking backwards compatibility.

A summary of the new object and enumerations include:

WorkZoneRoadEvent Object

New Property

Name Type Description Conformance
work_zone_type WorkZoneType The type of work zone road event Optional

WorkZoneType Enumerated Type

The type of work zone road event

Values

Value Description
static The road event statically placed - not moving.
moving The road event is actively moving on the roadway. As opposed to planned-moving-area, the road event goemetry changes at the operation moves.
planned-moving-area The planned extent of a moving oepration. The active work area will be somewhere within this road event. As opposed to moving, the road event geometry typically does not actively change

Used By

Property Object
work_zone_type WorkZoneRoadEvent
j-d-b commented 2 years ago

I am waiting for the merge conflicts to be resolved to approve, but the implementation looks good.