W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-automotive@w3.org > March 2021

Re: Geo-fencing for responsible use of spatial data from vehicles

From: Scott Simmons <ssimmons@ogc.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:37:16 -0600
Message-Id: <700BAFEB-256B-47D4-9E23-FF0F81A8BCCA@ogc.org>
Cc: Joseph Abhayaratna <joseph.abhayaratna@geoscape.com.au>, "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>, public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
To: ted@w3.org
Hi Ted,

OGC staff contributed to the requirements assessment for the Unmanned Aerial Systems work in ANSI (see the roadmap here: https://www.ansi.org/standards-coordination/collaboratives-activities/unmanned-aircraft-systems-collaborative <https://www.ansi.org/standards-coordination/collaboratives-activities/unmanned-aircraft-systems-collaborative>). There are standards that can be used to represent a geofence, but no standard to exactly describe a geofence in general (there are specs for various industries for domain-specific fencing).

In short, geofences may be defined in increasingly complex ways, starting with a point and radius to a box to an arbitrary polygon to a buffer around a corridor…. And those fences can be 2D or 3D in geometry and have temporal characteristics for a period of validity. Finally, geofences include or exclude, e.g., leaving a fenced area can result in a trigger or entering a fenced area can trigger an action.

Best Regards,

Scott Simmons
Chief Standards Officer | Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
Office: +1 970 682 1922 | Mobile: +1 970 214 9467
ssimmons@ogc.org <mailto:ssimmons@ogc.org> | ogc.org <http://ogc.org/> | @opengeospatial

Sign up for OGC News <https://ogc.us4.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=704e02f81107a6caab1568067&id=4e4528fd9d>

> On Mar 30, 2021, at 1:23 PM, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Jo and Spatial Data experts,
> The Automotive group would like to be able to come up with a modest set
> of parameters that could influence whether an application is permitted
> to sample data on a vehicle.
> We already have granular access control for signals so an application
> should be restricted to only information deemed pertinent and would
> likely only send a subset off the vehicle for bandwidth/cost/privacy
> considerations. We figure we can influence the access control
> authorization system based on additional parameters.
> As to thoughts on parameters for restricting data collection we have a
> few that initially come to mind:
> * Time of day, concept of eg off-work hours and personal use of company
> vehicle
> * geofence boundaries**
> * explicit opt-in/out override on a whole as well as granular per data
> point, specific purpose
> Geo-fencing in particular is what I'm hoping to get input from the OGC
> +others crowd in SDW group. 
> The shape of the "fenced" area can vary. We are hearing in practice,
> the privacy settings may involve user drawing an amorphous shape on a
> map, specify municipalities, counties, regions or give a radius.
> Representing that concisely is our problem. A simple rectangular shape
> would require four sets of coordinate, radius one coordinate and a
> distance plus means to calculate, county or other geographic boundary
> could be a look-up based on current location, and a free drawn shape
> more complex. 
> Is there a geo-fencing definition convention or standard that might
> facilitate?
> If there are other thoughts this question provokes or suggested
> references, please share.
> -- 
> Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> W3C Automotive Lead
> https://www.w3.org/auto


Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2021 19:38:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 30 March 2021 19:38:32 UTC