Design Review

1. Design Review SunGuide Map Upgrade December 10, 2009 Map Design Review

2. Agenda • Overview of new map • Implementation concept • Requirements overview • Map tile Generation process • Sample screen snapshots • 8 zoom levels defined • Discussion of map labels / colors / detail • New menu structure • Sample equipment on map • Questions / Answers Map Design Review

3. Overview of Map Map Design Review

4. Next Generation SunGuide Map • Locally hosted, custom generated tile map • Similar technology to Google Maps • Map tiles at different zoom levels pre-rendered • Stored on local web server at each installation • Tiles requested by client applications as needed • Tiles can be produced ONE TIME (“off-line” process) and then used many times Map Design Review

5. Tile Approach: • Tiles are combined to make a larger map – detail changes as the operator zooms in + + + + Map Design Review

6. Map Tile Generation • Performed before map is actually used • Runs once per update from Navteq • Could be run once per deployment if different appearance is desired NavteqShapefiles Static Rendered Map Tiles Tile Converter Map Design Review

7. Tile Generation Options • Custom tile generation provides flexibility in appearance • Roadways, water, other features can be colored however FDOT would like • Color changes could be made at a deployment level if desired • Device icons and other ITS features are NOT part of static tiles • Icons will be rendered independently of tiles Map Design Review

8. Map Drawing Technology • New drawing would use Microsoft WPF toolkit • Makes significant use of built-in graphics card • Map web application would consist of one large ActiveX control: • Draws both map tiles from server and icons from SunGuide • Map “menus” will be re-done (more on this later) Map Design Review

9. Tile Usage • Map application runs in browser on client • ActiveX drawing component requests tiles as needed • Tiles are pieced together to form map • Icons are added on top of map Static Rendered Map Tiles Tile Server Client Web Browser Map Design Review

10. Tile Benefits • Using tiles allows client to only request images as needed, rather than preloading all roads • More detail is available as all rendering is performed beforehand • All drawing is performed by ActiveX engine • SVG rendering no longer impacts performance • SVG would be removed from SunGuide (requires the SunGuide menus and map interaction to be rewritten) Map Design Review

11. Release 5.0 Map Tasks • Refine/Define requirements (see following slides):  • Review all current requirements with Districts • Modify requirements based on technologies being used • Create tile creation process: • Off-line map tile creation program (create tiles) • Implementation: • Tile server (this is equivalent to the GoogleMaps API called to render maps) • Client interface (controls on the GUI for an operator to manipulate the map) Map Design Review

12. Map Requirements • Background notes: • Because a “static” map tile will be used the “raw” map data is not available at the browser level • The customization of map colors/counties/level previously allowed by the operator will NOT be in the operator map (it will be in the map tile generation application) • The “hover” tool tip that pops up a roadway name if the mouse is parked over a road will NOT be implemented – this was previously done because of the lack of names/text on the map – the map tiles will have this data. • General Map • Map will be based on “Map Tiles” (image files) (MA001) • Map will support zoom (MA002 et al) • Map will support panning (MA003) • Map will display operator’s default view when the operator logs in (MA004) Map Design Review

13. Map Requirements - continued • General Map continued: • Map will display TSS links (MA005 et al) • Display of icons for ITS devices (MA006 et al) • Context menu based on hover position (MA007 et al) • “Right click” enhancement • Sample screen will be shown later • Device information when mouse is hovered (MA008 et al) • Display proposed response plan (MA009) • Display potential detected events (MA0010) • Support to change map views – drop down (MA0011) • Display AVL/RR track data (MA0012) Map Design Review

14. Map Requirements - continued • General Map continued: • Performance Requirements: (MA0013): • Address map “load time” • Pan / zoom refresh rates • Performance measures quantified by pieces of equipment are for equipment in the field of view (not the total amount of equipment configured) • Map Tile Generation: (MA0020): • Create “static” map tiles • ESRI tools will be used to implement the requirements • Editors (mimic current functionality with different background map): • Link Editor (MA0030 – MA0031) • Device Sequencing Editor (MA0040 – MA0045) • Geofence Editor (MA0050 – MA0051) Map Design Review

15. Datum Information • The original SunGuide map was based off DynaMap (then TeleAtlas) data which was WGS 84 based (note there are many variants of this datum): • The SVG map is built using a flat earth projection • Works great in low latitudes (like Florida) but not at more northern latitudes • New map: • Navteq datum is: “Lat Long WGS84” • Tools SwRI is using transforms this to: “WGS 1984 Web Mercator” which is the “Standard” for Internet Maps (e.g. Google, Microsoft) • Bottom line: • SwRI anticipates no issues with current lat/long values configured in SunGuide • If there are alignment issues, a transformation script will be provided (this is very well understood technology) Map Design Review

16. Map Tile Generation Process Map Design Review

17. Navteq Data • General overview: • Roadways have different “route_types”: • Blank • 1 Interstate • 2 US • 3 State Road • 4 County • Shield files have different values: • I1 (Interstate) • S1 (US) • S2 (State) • Data is composed of many “layers” • Often a single layer contains multiple types of data • Many times the SAME data is in multiple layers (i.e. the same highway in more than one file • Layers must be drawn in a user specified order Map Design Review

18. Creating the Map… • Use ArcMap from ESRI to manage the Navteq shape files • Image to the right shows the layers utilized, 2 custom layers defined: • SGShield: adds shields for FTE mainline) • SGHighway: adds connectors for intersections that “do not look right” Map Design Review

19. Customization of Navteq Data… • Navteq data as provided creates the image to the right • Customization is captured in a SunGuide document: • Oceans: water size reduced and squared off • Highways files edited to “code” tollways (previously coded as “blank”) • Shield files edited to code “tollways” • Data “north” and “west” of Florida “deleted” Map Design Review

20. Initial Road Color Scheme…VERY EASILY Changed… (will come back to slide) • For thick roads, the boarder is actually a darker version of primary color • Navteq coded highway layers: • 1 (Interstates): orange • 2 (US roads): yellow • 3 (State roads): thick black • 4 (County roads): thin black • Blank (in MajHwys mainly connectors): orange • Blank (in SecHwys mainly county): think black • Navteq coded street and altstreets layer: • Urban streets: thin black • SwRI modified Navteq data for (based on highway name in the data files): • 5 (FTE): green • 6 (OOCEA): green • 7 (MDX): green • 8 (Osceola Parkway): green • 9 (Tampa Hillsborough): green Map Design Review

21. Initial Shield Scheme…VERY EASILY Changed… (will come back to slide) • Shield contents and locations in Navteq data • Navteq coded Shields: • I1 (Interstates): • S1 (US roads): • S2 (State roads): • SwRI modified Navteq data for (based on highway name in the data files): • T1 (FTE): (used symbol provided by FTE) • T2 (OOCEA): • T3 (Tampa Hillsborough): • SwRI added a shield layer for FTE mainlines: Map Design Review

22. Layers Used Symbols and Polygons (not all features included) Roadways (colors can be changed) Map Design Review

23. Creating the levels… • 8 levels defined: • Generation (1024x1024 tiles): • Total files: 87,832 (582 MBs of disk) • Each zoom level: • Level 1: 7 files and folders • Level 2: 20 files and folders • Level 3: 80 files and folders • Level 4: 285 files and folders • Level 5: 1,073 files and folders • Level 6: 4,175 files and folders • Level 7: 16,589 files and folders • Level 8: 65,602 files and folders • The map application will accept ANY numbers of zoom levels (i.e. not hard coded to 8) – function of “generation time” • Took 91 hours to generate on a 3.0 GHz (dual core), 3 GB RAM machine • Files provided in “folders” that are accessed by the application Map Design Review

24. Sample Screen Snapshots Map Design Review

25. Items to discuss • What other features would FDOT like to see on the map • At what zoom level should features become “visible” (i.e. more detail as you zoom in) Map Design Review

26. Zoom Level 1 Map Design Review

27. Zoom Level 2 Map Design Review

28. Zoom Level 3 Map Design Review

29. Zoom Level 4 Map Design Review

30. Zoom Level 5 Map Design Review

31. Zoom Level 6 Map Design Review

32. Zoom Level 7 Map Design Review

33. Zoom Level 8(Little less than a 5 mile FOV on 1920x1200 monitor) Map Design Review

34. Could add a Zoom Level 9 (2.4 mi FOV)(when should “street labeling” be enabled) Map Design Review

35. Discussion Topics • Road colors • See upcoming slide • Intersections of freeways and toll roads • See upcoming slide • Toll road service areas • See upcoming slide • Shields are “oddly” spaced • See upcoming slide Map Design Review

36. Initial Road Color Scheme…Should these be changed? If so, to what? • For thick roads, the boarder is actually a darker version of primary color • Navteq coded highway layers: • 1 (Interstates): orange • 2 (US roads): yellow • 3 (State roads): thick black • 4 (County roads): thin black • Blank (in MajHwys mainly connectors): orange • Blank (in SecHwys mainly county): think black • Navteq coded street and altstreets layer: • Urban streets: thin black • SwRI modified Navteq data for (based on highway name in the data files): • 5 (FTE): green • 6 (OOCEA): green • 7 (MDX): green • 8 (Osceola Parkway): green • 9 (Tampa Hillsborough): green Map Design Review

37. Initial Shield Scheme…Should these be changed? If so, to what? • Shield contents and locations in Navteq data • Navteq coded Shields: • I1 (Interstates): • S1 (US roads): • S2 (State roads): • SwRI modified Navteq data for (based on highway name in the data files): • T1 (FTE): (used symbol provided by FTE) • T2 (OOCEA): • T3 (Tampa Hillsborough): • SwRI added a shield layer for FTE mainlines: Map Design Review

38. Example of Intersections(With a “manual” edits - separate reusable file) Colors based on coding provided by Navteq Colors with “manual” file for FTE intersections Map Design Review

39. Freeway Intersections in South Florida (zoom level 8) Map Design Review

40. Freeway Intersections in South Florida (zoom level 8) – con’t Map Design Review

41. Toll Road Service Area:Does this need to be different? Map Design Review

42. Shield SpacingFTE Mainline Shields Manually Placed Map Design Review

43. Discuss level of detail… • Additional features needed? • Does the content of the layers need to be altered? • What to do about intersections? Map Design Review

44. New Menu Structure (“right click” enhancement) Map Design Review

45. “Right Click” Menu Enhancement • Motivation (from D6 authored SunGuide Right Click Menu Enhancement document): • Replace “the cryptic subsystem names in the right click menu with more descriptive common terminology” • Expected impact: • more efficient use of the interface • easier training of new operators • Has been reviewed and approved by both the SSUG and CMB • Following slides provide the implementation of the requirements that were derived from the enhancement document. Map Design Review

46. Menus • In previous versions of SunGuide: • Menu was constructed around “subsystems” • If a subsystem was off-line or the user not logged in then the entry would not show up • New menu is not subsystem centric • The same philosophy of not showing unavailable options will be implemented BUT since the menu is not subsystem centric there are times a root option will need to remain because a sub-menu items needs to be visible. Map Design Review

47. Steve, Will you be available tomorrow morning at 11:15 if we do a quick 15 min meeting to vote on C2C issue. Arun Main Menu Map Design Review

48. Steve, Will you be available tomorrow morning at 11:15 if we do a quick 15 min meeting to vote on C2C issue. Arun Cameras Map Design Review

49. Steve, Will you be available tomorrow morning at 11:15 if we do a quick 15 min meeting to vote on C2C issue. Arun Center-to-Center Map Design Review

50. Steve, Will you be available tomorrow morning at 11:15 if we do a quick 15 min meeting to vote on C2C issue. Arun DMS Map Design Review