2021 10 01 Worker Presence Subgroup meeting

Meeting Information

October 1, 2021, 2:00-3:00pm EDT

Purpose

• Review and discuss proposed PR #206, which adds new Worker Presence data structures

Agenda

• Welcome and Sign-In
• PR #206 – New Worker Presence Data Structures
• Discussion
• Wrap Up

Minutes

PR #206

Current Worker Presence Property

Property	Type	Description	Conformance	Notes
workers_present	Boolean (true/false)	A flag indicating that there are workers present in the road event	Optional

Pseudocode example:

**Work zone 1**  
Road name: I-35  `
Direction: southbound  `
Lanes present: 4  `
Estimated start date: 6.6.2021 at 4 am  `
Estimated end date: 6.6.2021 at 10 pm  `
Status: active  `
Workers present: true`  

Proposed Worker Presence Object

Property	Type	Description	Conformance	Notes
are_workers_present	Boolean	Whether workers are present in the work zone event area. This value should be set in accordance with the definition provided in the definitionproperty if it is provided.	Required
definition	Array; [WorkerPresenceDefinition]	A list of situations in which workers are considered to be present in the jurisdiction of the data provider.	Optional
source	WorkerPresenceSource	Data source providing information on whether workers are present in the work zone event area.	Optional
worker_presence_last_confirmed_date	String; date-time	Date and time at which the presence of workers was last confirmed using the source.	Optional	All datetime formats shall follow RFC 3339 Section 5.6.
confidence	WorkerPresenceConfidence	The data producer’s confidence in workers being present in the work zone event area at the time of feed publication.	Optional

Pseudocode Example:

**Work Zone 1**  
Road name: I-35  
Direction: southbound  
Lanes present: 4  
Estimated start date: 6.6.2021 at 4 am  
Estimated end date: 6.6.2021 at 10 pm  
Status: active  
Worker presence:  
    Are workers present: true  
    Source: mobile app  
    WP last confirmed date: 6.6.2021 at 5:12 am  
    Confidence: high  
    Definition:  
        humans physically in work zone  
        mobile equipment moving in work zone  

New Enumerated Types

The proposed worker_presence_definition property would be an optional property in the WorkerPresence object.
List one or more situations when workers are considered present in your jurisdiction from the values in this list:
√ Humans physically working within the work zone
√ Humans physically within the work zone but not working
√ Mobile equipment in the work zone that is moving
□ A barrier wall in place within the clear zone
□ A barrier wall in place within the edge lines
□ A barrier wall in place within the right of way
□ Fixed equipment in the work zone
□ Mobile equipment in the work zone but not moving

The proposed source property would be an optional field in the WorkerPresence object used to indicate how a data provider knows whether workers are present.
□ Camera-based monitoring
□ Presence of smart arrow board
□ Presence of smart traffic cones
□ Presence of maintenance vehicles
□ Presence of smart wearables
√ Worker check in via mobile app
□ Automated worker check-in mobile device
□ Worker check in via phone or radio call
□ Scheduled

The proposed optional confidence property would reflect the data producer’s confidence in whether workers are present/not present as reported using the are_workers_present property.
Previously this property was presented as a numerical score between 0 and 10, but there was not a clear way to distinguish between each number.
□ low
□ medium
□ high

Discussion

Jacob – Requested clarification on how the confidence score ties to last confirmed date. Does this mean that the confidence score represents the moment the last confirmed date was updated?

• Serge – Noted that this is correct and having both allow for more organizations to use the Worker Presence field.

Dan Sprengeler – Noted that in his work with other connected devices there is often a periodic “health check”. This could be a smart vest asking a worker to verify if they are still working after a certain time interval.

• Kristin – Noted that the spec will include flexibility for organizations that don’t have technology this complex.

Navin Nageli – Praised the proposed approach.

Nate – Proposed piloting this in a small location to test its useability.

• Kristin – Noted that she is working with one (soon to be two) data producer and is planning to incorporate experimenting with the Worker Presence field.
• Serge – Noted that he would also like to try this within the next year. Additionally, at least one grant awardee expressed that they want to publish worker presence information.

Neil – Praised the work and its flexibility for organizations using different levels of technology. MA will try to build this into their v4.0 feed.

Navin – Posed the question of how to handle multiple sources for confirmation. Would you use the last known source?

• Serge – Agreed that would be a good approach.

Neil – Noted that his point was more about that different contractors using different technology.

Next Steps

• Subgroup members should comment on the GitHub pull request with any additional feedback
• Subgroup co-chairs will present the final PR at the WZDWG meeting in November and WZDWG members will vote on its inclusion in v4.0
• Data consumers who would like to share their input on worker presence data should reach out to Mark & the co-chairs

Reminder: The Work Zone Data Working Group semi-annual meeting is Wednesday November 3rd, 12:00-2:30pm EDT. If you have not received a calendar invite, please email [email protected]

Participants

Name	Organization
*Luke Urie	Austin Transportation Department
*Kristin Virshbo	Castle Rock Associates
*Serge Beaudry	Ver-Mac
Nagham Matout	ATSSA
Mahsa Ettefagh	Booz Allen
Weimin Huang	HERE Technologies
Jacob Brady	IBI Group
Ross Sheckler	iCone
Dan Sprengeler	Iowa DOT
Walter Jones	Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of North America
Alexander Lemka	Maricopa County DOT
Neil Boudreau	Massachusetts DOT Highway Division
Merdith Nelson	Michigan DOT
Michelle Moser	Minnesota DOT
Navin Nageli	Navjoy
Hadrian Merced Hernandez	USDOT Volpe Center
Molly Behan	USDOT Volpe Center
Mark Mockett	USDOT Volpe Center
David Rush	Virginia DOT
Tony Leingang	Washington State DOT

* Co-chair of Worker Presence Subgroup