SunGuide SM Map Alternatives Workshop

1. SunGuideSM Map Alternatives Workshop Map Alternatives Workshop

2. Why Look at Other Maps Map Alternatives Workshop

3. Discussions Topics • Map Technology used • ITN required use of FDOT provided “shape files” (limits available tools/solutions) • Browser based solution: • Facilitates “updates” • Highly portable (i.e. any computer with a browser) and flexible (i.e. easy to add users by simply providing access to “server”) • Current issues: • SVG used as “drawing” tool • “Look and feel” • Functionality Map Alternatives Workshop

4. Map Implementation Approaches • Workstation approach: • Map data and application INSTALLED on workstation • Server approach: • Map data and image generation performed on a server Map Alternatives Workshop

5. Map Implementation Approaches: continued Alternative server implementation: return more than an image SunGuideSM Approach: hybrid that process “map” data at the local workstation Map Alternatives Workshop

6. SVG Technology Used to Implement the SunGuideSM Map • Map is rendered using JavaScript and SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) • Background on SVG: • Is NOT a vendor specific product • Is a W3C standard • 2D graphics • Mobile versions available • SVG plug-ins: • Adobe used in SG deployments • Adobe dropping support 1/08 • Firefox (mozilla.org) • See www.svgi.org Map Alternatives Workshop

7. Why is this being discussed? • Questions about SunGuideSM map “performance”: • Performance issues are based on XML messages being processed by GUI (and not map rendering) • GUI enhancement in process to address parsing issue Map Alternatives Workshop

8. GUI Performance Enhancement Currently Being Implemented Map Alternatives Workshop

9. Moving Forward:Look at Map Improvements • New functionality being requested of the map as deployments utilize the SunGuideSM map • Questions to be considered: • What additional functionality is required: • Street names? Everywhere or just around instrumented roadway segments? • Better looking “eye candy”? • Should the Operator “base” map (the map in the control center) be the same as provided on an Internet web site? • How often should the base map be updated? • Should FDOT control the “map services” (i.e. the creation of maps)? Map Alternatives Workshop

10. Map Creation Options: Summary • Workstation based Map (e.g. ESRI GIS tools) • Server based map (e.g. Google Maps) • SunGuideSM (combination of both of the above) Map Alternatives Workshop

11. SunGuideSM Map – What it Does Map Alternatives Workshop

12. SunGuideSM Map: Summary of Existing Requirements • Map shall display: • Congestion (color coded to indicate conditions) • Incidents (use color, flash, audio, icons to indicate status) • Device (e.g. DMS, camera, detectors) locations (use color to indicate status) • Map shall support: • Manual creation of incidents • Selection of alternate map views • General requirements: • Map source shall be shape files • SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics based) • Color choices shall be user selectable • Internet map must meet OIS guidelines for Internet sites Map Alternatives Workshop

13. What SunGuideSM Map Displays • ITS Devices: • Cameras • DMS • HAR (Highway Advisory Radio) • Ramp Meter Stations • RWIS (Roadway Weather Information Systems) • Safety Barrier Stations • TSS Detectors • IM Events (Incidents, Congestion, Construction, etc.) • TSS Lane Diagrams • Center-to-Center: • C2C Cameras • C2C DMS • C2C Incidents • C2C Lane Closures • C2C HAR • C2C RWIS • The map also displays highway shields, roadway names, state roads, local roads, bodies of water. • Map “COMPUTES” instrumented segments Map Alternatives Workshop

14. What SunGuideSM Web Server Displays • Meets OIS Internet Guidelines • User options: • Incident information • Lane closures • DMS messages • CCTV snapshots • Travel Times • Detector data • RWIS Data • Maps: • “Administrator” defined regions of interest • Devices are user selectable icons on the map Map Alternatives Workshop

15. Shortcomings of Current SunGuideSM Map Map Alternatives Workshop

16. Shortcomings • Open discussion: • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ • ________________________ Map Alternatives Workshop

17. Compiled Responses to Map Questions Map Alternatives Workshop

18. Questions Posed by Alternative Map Technologies White Paper • White paper posed the following: • Source for dynamic data? • Fidelity of data: what level of data is needed? • Data updates: how often are made updates required? • Operations map versus “consumer” map: does the map solution need to be the same for operations versus the consumer (Internet) map? • Is FDOT willing to rely on a third-party for real-time map data? • Is FDOT willing to accept a “transaction based” map server? • Security of map server? • FDOT CO solicited feedback on each question • “Bonus” question at the end Map Alternatives Workshop

19. Questions Posed by Alternative Map Technologies White Paper – con’t • Source for dynamic data? What will be the source for data for the map? The SunGuideSM software has a Center-to-Center component that provides the data necessary for a robust traffic conditions map. The use of a standard interface would assure portability of the mapping application to multiple Districts (i.e. a “generic” web site that could be re-used many times). This more an Internet Web Site question. Map Alternatives Workshop

20. Questions Posed by Alternative Map Technologies White Paper – con’t • Fidelity of data: what level of data is needed? For example, is the data available from Dynamap acceptable or is the type of data from a MapPoint/Google required? Map Alternatives Workshop

21. Questions Posed by Alternative Map Technologies White Paper – con’t • Data updates: how often are made updates required? Each vendor of map data has a different update schedule, FDOT needs to evaluate how often they require a map “refresh” and whether or not the vendor provides the frequency required. Map Alternatives Workshop

22. Questions Posed by Alternative Map Technologies White Paper – con’t • Operations map versus “consumer” map: does the map solution need to be the same for operations versus the consumer (Internet) map? The map needs for control center applications are different than a simple graphical map that is presented to travelers. Map Alternatives Workshop

23. Questions Posed by Alternative Map Technologies White Paper – con’t • Is FDOT willing to rely on a third-party for real-time map data? If an external server is providing map images, FDOT will be completely at the mercy of the health of that server for its own operations. Map Alternatives Workshop

24. Questions Posed by Alternative Map Technologies White Paper – con’t • Is FDOT willing to accept a “transaction based” map server? Several major products have transaction pricing established. Within the industry, there is lot a of speculation that the products currently free (e.g. Google Maps) are likely to switch to a transaction based cost system or the number of advertisements will increase. Map Alternatives Workshop

25. Questions Posed by Alternative Map Technologies White Paper – con’t • Security of map server? If the solution is based on an outside map server (e.g. Google), what might happen if network connectivity were lost during an emergency event? This could include massive power failures (hurricane related) or simply a failed network connection from the Internet provider. Having the map hosted outside the TMC places a dependency on external Internet providers for access to the map. Map Alternatives Workshop

26. Questions Posed by Alternative Map Technologies White Paper – con’t • Bonus question: • Would FDOT be willing to switch the SunGuideSM user interface (Map and all GUI components to a “Windows based” application? • Notes: • Much of the C# working being done in the GUI enhancement would be reusable • Implies that software would need to be installed on EACH workstation accessing SunGuideSM. Map Alternatives Workshop

27. Alternative Map Approaches Map Alternatives Workshop

28. Alternatives Investigated:Alternative Map Approaches White Paper • Workstation Based Maps: • ESRI ArcObjects • ESRI MapObjects • MapPoint 2006 SE • Server Based Maps: • MapPoint Web Services • Google Maps • Yahoo! Maps • ESRI ArcWeb • ESRI ArcIMS • Note: SunGuideSM uses SVG (WC3 Internet Standard) – HTML like syntax for “vector” drawing Map Alternatives Workshop

29. Sample Workstation Based Maps • ESRI Tools: • Map Objects is a long-term development product • Provides extensive “shape file” manipulation tools • Benefits • Shape file data readily available • Complete control over rendering • Widely used in the GIS industry Courtesy ESRI: http://www.esri.com Map Alternatives Workshop

30. Sample Workstation Based Maps:Continued • Microsoft MapPoint (similar to “Streets and Trips”): • API is provided for developer manipulation of map • State of Texas statewide program utilizing product for TMC based maps • Benefits • Provides visually appealing maps • Well integrated with Microsoft products • Limitations • Base map data cannot be altered Map Alternatives Workshop

31. Workstation Based Maps:Functionality and Cost Summaries Map Alternatives Workshop

32. Sample Server Based Maps • Google Maps: • Widely used Internet based map tool • Easy to build map applications that combine custom data and Google provided base maps • Benefits • Visually appealing maps • Easy to use • Limitations • Product is still “beta”; long term plans undefined Courtesy: Google maps (http://www.google.com/maps) Map Alternatives Workshop

33. Sample Server Based Maps:Continued • Microsoft Maps: • Internet mapping tool that is quite similar to Google Maps • Microsoft provides “Map Server” for a usage fee • Benefits • Visually appealing maps • Easy to use • Microsoft supported • Limitations • Fee based usage structure Courtesy: Spky (http://www.spyk.com/) Map Alternatives Workshop

34. Server Based Maps:Performance and Cost Summaries Map Alternatives Workshop

35. Recommendations • Do not select a map tool until desired functionality is captured • “Needs” for map be captured: • Write as requirements • Prioritize and establish consensus • Evaluate implementation alternatives: • Evaluate implementation options • Evaluate development costs • Evaluate deployment / maintenance / usage costs Map Alternatives Workshop

36. Questions? Map Alternatives Workshop