Re: [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location in a PIDF-LO

From: Winterbottom, James ^lt;James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>
Date: Tue Jul 29 2008 - 17:37:02 EDT

Thanks Marc, that is what the draft does.
It also gives you the option of not transporting the geodetic location, but provides a pointer to where it can be obtained to address the size issue that the other James is talking about.

Cheers
James

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Berryman [mailto:MBerryman@911.org]
Sent: Tue 7/29/2008 8:56 AM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: Winterbottom, James; geopriv@ietf.org; ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location in a PIDF-LO
 
As long as it clearly noted that the location is derived from geodetic
then I am fine. How to indicate? Provide both geodetic and derived. If
geodetic is provided then one can safely assume the provided civic is
derived (I would hope).

Marc B

-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:14 AM
To: Marc Berryman
Cc: Winterbottom, James; geopriv@ietf.org; ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location in a
PIDF-LO

Hi Marc,

I agree with you that re-coding isn't the ideal solution.
Now, the question is: What do we do when someone still does it? We are
not the deployment police.
Should we indicate the fact that re-coding has happened? How should we
indicate it?

Ciao
Hannes

Marc Berryman wrote:
>
> I see very real issues with deriving a civic location from a geodetic
> location, when wireless geodetic locations became widely available
> this "reverse geocoding" caused many problems. Personally I see no
> value but many issues that can come about from a derived civic
location.
>
> I will try to expand on these issues (while not being able to draw
> pictures to illustrate) from a "Lessons Learned" aspect.
>
> 1.) Geodetic location comes in and a civic location is derived from
> the nearest know civic location, but the geodetic location is centered

> on a building in a large campus or a large apartment building. The
> nearest civic location is the entrance to the large campus or
> apartment complex, so you have lost desirable information of the more
> precise location in favor of the civic location given to the campus or

> apartment building.
>
> 2.) Same scenario as above, but this time the nearest civic location
> is NOT the same as the civic location provided to the apartment
> complex or campus. The nearest civic location is provided and a
> delayed response is caused by providing the incorrect civic location.
>
> 3.) A geodetic location come in from a boat in the lake, river, or
> bay. The derived civic location is a home on the lake, river, or bay.
> Delayed response due to incorrect location being provided.
>
> 4.) Vehicle on interstate highway (limited access highway) provides
> geodetic location, derived civic location is along the highway but a
> delayed response takes place because not only is the civic location
> derived incorrect but the responding agency has to drive miles to gain

> access to the limited access highway when the correct responding
> agency is near the access point of the limited access highway.
>
> I could and can go on and on on scenarios that can (and have) occurred

> due to derived locations, but let me put forth another consideration.
>
> The service providing the derived location is using a spatial dataset,

> but it is not being maintained to the same level as the spatial data
> being used at the PSAP, out of date information is passed to the PSAP
> - LIBALITY ISSUE. We update our spatial data on a minute by minute
> basis, with literaily hundreds of changes taking place each day. There

> are just so many little differences that could exist between the
> derived location and the actual location provided by a trained call
> taker, that is familiar with the local geography, that this could
> easily become a disaster and gain major news coverage that could deal
> the industry and the confidence of the public a significant setback.
>
> Aside from these concerns I did notice a few gramatical
> inconsistancies in the draft.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marc B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:31 AM
> To: Winterbottom, James
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org; ecrit@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location in a
PIDF-LO
>
> Sounds like a useful way to indicate the derived location
>
> Winterbottom, James wrote:
>
> >
>
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-derived-loc-00
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Specifying Derived Location in a PIDF-LO
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Abstract
>
> >
>
> > This document describes how specify that a location in a PIDF-LO has
>
> > been derived or converted from a different location. The source
>
> > location may reside in the same PIDF-LO or be a remote document
>
> > referenced by a location URI and associated id fragement.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Feedback appreciated.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cheers
>
> >
>
> > James
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
>
> > This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>
> > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
>
> > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>
> > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
>
> > this email is prohibited.
>
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
>
> > [mf2]
>
> >
>
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Geopriv mailing list
>
> > Geopriv@ietf.org
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Geopriv mailing list
>
> Geopriv@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:37:02 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 29 2008 - 17:38:05 EDT