1. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 1 SunGuide SM Map Alternatives Workshop

2. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 2 Why Look at Other Maps

3. January 11, 2007Map 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

4. January 11, 2007Map 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

5. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 5 Map Implementation Approaches: continued Alternative server implementation: return more than an image SunGuide SM Approach: hybrid that process “map” data at the local workstation

6. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 6 SVG Technology Used to Implement the SunGuide SM 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

7. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 7 Why is this being discussed? Questions about SunGuide SM 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

8. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 8 GUI Performance Enhancement Currently Being Implemented

9. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 9 Moving Forward: Look at Map Improvements New functionality being requested of the map as deployments utilize the SunGuide SM 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)?

10. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 10 Map Creation Options: Summary Workstation based Map (e.g. ESRI GIS tools) Server based map (e.g. Google Maps) SunGuide SM (combination of both of the above)

11. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 11 SunGuide SM Map – What it Does

12. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 12 SunGuide SM 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

13. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 13 What SunGuide SM 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

14. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 14 What SunGuide SM 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

15. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 15 Shortcomings of Current SunGuide SM Map

16. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 16 Shortcomings Open discussion: –________________________

17. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 17 Compiled Responses to Map Questions

18. January 11, 2007Map 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

19. January 11, 2007Map 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 SunGuide SM 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.

20. January 11, 2007Map 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?

21. January 11, 2007Map 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.

22. January 11, 2007Map 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.

23. January 11, 2007Map 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.

24. January 11, 2007Map 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.

25. January 11, 2007Map 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.

26. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 26 Questions Posed by Alternative Map Technologies White Paper – con’t Bonus question: –Would FDOT be willing to switch the SunGuide SM 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 SunGuide SM.

27. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 27 Alternative Map Approaches

28. January 11, 2007Map 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: SunGuide SM uses SVG (WC3 Internet Standard) – HTML like syntax for “vector” drawing

29. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 29 Sample Workstation Based Maps ESRI Tools: –Map Objects is a long-term development product –Provides extensive “shape file” manipulation tools Courtesy ESRI: http://www.esri.com Benefits –Shape file data readily available –Complete control over rendering –Widely used in the GIS industry

30. January 11, 2007Map 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

31. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 31 Workstation Based Maps: Functionality and Cost Summaries

32. January 11, 2007Map 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 Courtesy: Google maps (http://www.google.com/maps)http://www.google.com/maps Benefits –Visually appealing maps –Easy to use Limitations –Product is still “beta”; long term plans undefined

33. January 11, 2007Map 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 Courtesy: Spky (http://www.spyk.com/) Benefits –Visually appealing maps –Easy to use –Microsoft supported Limitations –Fee based usage structure

34. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 34 Server Based Maps: Performance and Cost Summaries

35. January 11, 2007Map 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

36. January 11, 2007Map Alternatives Workshop 36 Questions?