Skip to content

Web conference notes, 2025.07.10 (MDS Working Group)

Jump to bottom
Michael Schnuerle edited this page Jul 21, 2025 · 18 revisions

MDS Working Group

Agenda

AVs and Incident Data in DC

DC requires incident and crash reporting for autonomous vehicles passenger services and sidewalk delivery robots. DDOT receives baseline notification of crashes for AVs, and collision incident reports from personal delivery devices (PDDs), both in ad-hoc formats. DDOT would like to standardize this data in MDS, and allow other jurisdictions to use the MDS for incidents in these and other modes going forward.

Existing Background and Pre-work

Agenda

  1. Intro and announcements (5 min)
  2. AVs and Incident Data in DC (50 mins)
    1. Overview of incident data in MDS (5 mins) - Michael Schnuerle
    2. DDOT program and requirements (15 mins) - DDOT
    3. Discussion on adding to MDS (30 mins) - Michael Schnuerle
      1. Draft proposal #994, Incident data model

WGSC Meeting Organizers

  • Host: Pierre Bouffort, Blue Systems
  • Facilitator: Michael Schnuerle, OMF
  • Preparation: Michael Schnuerle, OMF
  • Outreach: Michael Schnuerle, OMF
  • Note taker: Michael Schnuerle, OMF

Action Items and Decisions

  1. Comment on draft proposal #994. See Incident data model
    1. Add incident types: Disengagements, Theft (done)
    2. Add yes/no fields: ambulance transport, medical dispatch (done)
    3. Add to telemetry as optional: accelerometer data (done)
    4. Open question: how often should telemetry be updated/sent? (updated)
    5. DDOT to leave comment on crash data requirements for AVs/TNCs

Minutes

Notes

OVERVIEW OF INCIDENT DATA IN MDS

  • Started discussions about crash data in earnest 2011, with micromobility (bike/scooter share), but was not possible to provide then.
  • With MDS 2.0 in 2023, support for taxis, TNCs, AVs, car share, delivery robots, etc was added, and these modes make this reporting easier
  • This data sharing of crashes is sometimes legally required for these modes
  • Documented community needs for other types “incidents”, like tip overs, harsh braking/acceleration, near misses, unplanned stops, vandalism, etc
  • Crash/Incident discussion on GitHub is our most commented on issue ever`
  • DDOT is solidifying a way forward with concrete ‘incident’ requirements for AVs, car share, personal delivery devices, and fleet vehicles.

DDOT PROGRAMS AND DATA REQUIREMENTS

  • DDOT will check to see if Taxis/TNCs are or can get MDS data
  • All modes have crash and incident data sharing requirements
  • Kiwibot first soon, using MDS
  • Waymo is operating, will get reports
  • DDOT will get incident data in some formate, would prefer MDS

AV data:

  • Within 12 hours notification of any crash: need to know location of the crash, Date and approximate time, Severity (hospital transport, ambulance called, property damage only major/minor), Contact info for representative reporting

  • 5 day report of a lot more details

  • William Chernicoff at Toyota - seen disengagements 1-2 seconds before crash given to driver, meaning driver was a fault, but that's not entirely accurate

    • Want to understand near misses, harsh braking, etc

  • DDOT wants 12 hour data coming in through MDS at a minimum

PDD/delivery robots now:

  • similar collision data for AVs, but within 6 hours
  • Anton Shingarev at AV Ride - with property damage, 90% of collisions are cars hitting PDDs
  • DDOT: Hitting an PDD could be an indicator to hitting a small child

Shared fleet devices (micromobility, dockless bikes/scooters) and carshare:

  • Any and all issues within 24 hours, then monthly more detailed reporting

  • Brooks at SFMTA - AV SGO requirements vs federal data requirements (Standing General Order on Crash Reporting)

    • DDOT looking at this, but not interested in using only SGO, want their own data reporting

Common themes for all programs:

  • Location
  • Date/time
  • Incident severity in some form
  • Something about what happened – where in ROW, movement proceeding, speed
  • Linkage to police or other reporting

PROPOSAL FOR ADDING INCIDENTS TO MDS

Draft proposal for adding various incidents into MDS to meet DDOT’s requirements and allow standard use in other jurisdictions already interested.

  • A new ‘Incident’ data object to store the information
  • A new MDS Provider endpoint where agencies can pull data at regular intervals from operators
  • A new MDS Agency endpoint where operators can push data to agencies in real-time, only when there is new information
  • multiple incidents can be happening and recorded at one time/location

Includes basic information about incidents in the short term, with more detailed future information available via an external Report ID.

Connected to MDS telemetry points, which includes time and location of vehicles whether they are on a trip or not.

Field Type  
incident_id UUID Required
incident_type Enum Required
publication_time Timestamp Required
last_updated Timestamp Required
description String Optional
severity String Optional
report_id String Optional
report_type String Optional
contact_info String Optional
preliminary Boolean Optional

Endpoint info

  • Endpoints for both Agency and Provider, based on how the agency would like to receive data.
  • Provider - includes query string parameters to help filter the data and return new, changed, or only relevant data
  • Agency - includes ability to create new incidents, and update existing incidents.
  • Similar to and aligns with the rest of MDS endpoints.

Review draft proposal #994.

Sharing Incident data model

Open questions and discussion

  • What other incident types are needed?

    • Disengagements
    • Theft

  • What other fields are needed?

    • ambulance transport
    • medical dispatch
    • MMUCC will not be aligned to based on complexity and US specific context

  • Do we need incident IDs in Events or vehicle states too?

    • probably not needed in Events

  • How often are Telemetry points updated in practice?

    • open question
    • timestamp of incident independent of Telemetry timestamp attached to
    • more frequent telemetry points may be required when an incident is occuring

  • Should we add more basic telemetry data options, like accelerometer data?

    • probably add them as optional general telemetry fields

Timeline of adding to MDS

  • Would be part of MDS 2.1 release plan
  • Oct more concrete in draft, Sept working to finalize, approve 1st quarter 2026
  • Could be pushed to development branch soon and used by agencies, usually only minor changes happen in approval phases

Thanks from DDOT for OMF staff creating a draft change to MDS

  • needed a concrete proposal from DDOT, and staff needed to create pull request

Vlad from LADOT

  • having 5 PDD companies, plus taxis/Avs, plus scooters, plus carshare, etc, means it's important for a city to know about incidents and improve Vision Zero outcomes. Safety a priority and this data should be incentivized to be shared and used to improve the city.

Chat

  • 00:06:07 Kevin Tobias: Kevin Tobias PennDOT

  • 00:06:39 Anton Shingarev: Anton Shingarev, Avride.ai

  • 00:06:53 Aylene McCallum: Welcome everyone!

  • 00:06:59 Tim Adams: Tim Adams - HAAS Alert

  • 00:06:59 Abhishek (See.Sense): Abhishek from See.Sense

  • 00:07:20 Sarah Dreitlein - CSJ: Sarah Dreitlein - City of San Jose DOT

  • 00:07:40 Michael Schnuerle (OMF): Agenda: https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/wiki/Web-conference-notes,-2025.07.10-(MDS-Working-Group)

  • 00:10:14 Aylene McCallum (OMF): If you did not receive the newsletter and you would like to be added, please feel free to privately message me!

  • 00:13:34 Rafal Drewnowski: Any apetite for reporting failures of AV systems?

  • 00:15:17 Michael Schnuerle (OMF): Replying to "Any apetite for repo..."

  • I think if it results in a failure of the vehicle on the road, then yes, that would be an ‘incident’ in this MDS case.

  • 00:22:57 Anton Shingarev: Stephanie, thank you for your presentation. Will you have slides about PDD reporting?

  • 00:23:14 Michael Schnuerle (OMF): Replying to "Stephanie, thank you..."

  • Yes those are coming next

  • 00:23:20 Anton Shingarev: Reacted to "Yes those are coming..." with 👍

  • 00:23:37 Jacques Coulon - City of Orlando: Does the report include the vehicle type as well?

  • 00:24:44 Armand Shahbazian / Seattle DOT: Will these regs only apply to fleet-owned AVs? Or will the data reporting apply to highly automated personal vehicles that may have L3 systems?

  • 00:25:05 Michael Schnuerle (OMF): Replying to "Does the report incl..."

  • MDS does include vehicle information and details, and the Incident proposal we will talk about includes this.

  • 00:25:18 Jacques Coulon - City of Orlando: Reacted to "MDS does include veh..." with 👍

  • 00:26:22 Brooks Jessup: @Stephanie Dock (DDOT | DC) how do you see the relationship between AV crash reporting required by DDOT and those required by the SGO? Are the DDOT reqs broader?

  • 00:28:43 Anton Shingarev: @Stephanie Dock (DDOT | DC) Happy to share our insights and experience with PDDs

  • 00:34:13 Robert White: Any capturing of data when an AV ignores law enforcement (officer redirecting traffic)?

  • 00:40:44 Stephanie Dock (DDOT | DC): Replying to "Any apetite for repo..."

  • We are interested. On the PDD side I neglected to include the one other incident reporting type: "The nature and location of any incidents resulting in a personal delivery device coming to an off-roadway stop or being otherwise removed from operations"

  • on the AV side, the item we currently have from the legislation is "A description of common, unplanned circumstances the ADS ceased autonomous operations or where a test operator took control"

  • 00:41:25 Stephanie Dock (DDOT | DC): Replying to "Will these regs only..."

  • Our AV requirements kick in at anything equipped with L3 or above

  • 00:41:53 Armand Shahbazian / Seattle DOT: Reacted to "Our AV requirements ..." with 👍

  • 00:43:55 Stephanie Dock (DDOT | DC): Replying to "Any capturing of dat..."

  • We are trying to think about how to capture those but mostly thinking that's not the best item to get directly from the AV companies - we need other reporting mechanisms via police or other monitoring tool (intersection cameras, for example). We use traffic control officers pretty extensively in DC and so are definitely thinking about this beyond just law enforcement

  • 00:45:04 Stephanie Dock (DDOT | DC): Replying to "Any apetite for repo..."

  • Should have noted -the AV one is in the monthly reporting. We'd like to think about how to capture that in a format that tells us something about how they're doing in our environment. We've talked about how to build into MDS, but not in the incident feed necessarily

  • 00:45:18 Michael Schnuerle (OMF): https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/pull/944

  • 00:45:24 Stephanie Dock (DDOT | DC): Replying to "Any apetite for repo..."

  • But minimal risk condition situations could be included in the incidents as Michael has drafted it

  • 00:45:50 Michael Schnuerle (OMF): Incident draft https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/blob/feature-incident/data-types.md#incidents

  • 00:53:49 Alex Demisch (SFMTA): Yes, thank you Michael for drafting!

  • 00:58:10 Gene Leynes | Chicago | MDS Working Group Member: MMUCC link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/traffic-records/model-minimum-uniform-crash-criteria

  • 01:02:14 Stephanie Dock (DDOT | DC): Good point, @Vladimir Gallegos (LADOT) - if we only rely on crash reports, DC would miss AV on PDD crashes since we don't require police reports for property damage only crashes

  • 01:03:14 Stephanie Dock (DDOT | DC): Michael - you are welome to include my slides in what you post of your presenation - it was all based on public record

  • 01:03:34 Gene Leynes | Chicago | MDS Working Group Member: I think we should summarize the issue... maybe into a new issue.

  • 01:04:05 Aylene McCallum (OMF): Thank you for coming!

  • 01:04:12 Anton Shingarev: Thank you

omf-mds-github-footer

MDS Wiki Home

MDS Links

Working Groups

2.1.0 Release

2.0.0 Release Plan

1.2.0 Release Plan

1.1.0 Release Plan

1.0.0 Release Plan

0.4.1 Release Planning Meetings

0.4.0 Release Planning Meetings

0.3.2 and earlier Release Planning Meetings

Clone this wiki locally