[email protected] wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:17:36 +0100, Tom Evans <[email protected]> > wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> Why would anyone be interested in when the event started? >>> It's there, it will be there when you get there so it's >>> to be used in the metric. >> Most traffic congestion doesn't operate to an accurate timetable? >> Typically, you have observations of the congestion (at a known >> time), and an estimated (i.e. made up) duration. > > Correct and if a new estimate becomes known or the cancellation > of the event is broadcast it gets updated.
Yes, I was just implying it was a shame to throw away the one piece of known good information and send the guessed bit instead. >> For the few events which are predictable, you'd want to take >> advantage of that and broadcast the prediction. But without implying >> the event has already started. Unless I'm missing something, you >> can't do that with just expiration date. Just a thought. > > So you mean expected events? > I did not think about these before. Do you know any sources > where we may actually get such data? Rush hour is a bit of a broad one, but there are definitely particular hotspots that become much worse than the rest then. I've also seen occasional warning of queueing for a big event, which should presumably be known in advance. Also some motorway roadworks have a scheduled start time. I don't think it's the common case by any means, but it would be a shame to encode the scheme such that they could never be described. > This is becoming more complicated then I expected. For that reason alone I like the name-value pairs you put in. My instinct is to try and push everything that isn't essential and a fixed byte count into that, but I can't think where I'm getting that idea from... Tom _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
