[Ovmsdev] Open Charge Map
mark at webb-johnson.net
Mon May 26 09:00:45 HKT 2014
To be clear: I was only suggesting geofencing at the server per-user-per-chargestation level, to determine the user's preference for sharing information at this particular station. For the data published, I'd rather just send out raw GPS coordinates of the event (with OCM station ID as an optional field, if confirmed by the user).
On 24 May, 2014, at 5:06 am, Tom Saxton <tom at idleloop.com> wrote:
> I expect that grouping by geofencing will be helpful, but there will be problems, so I think it's important to retain the original longitude/latitude coordinates.
> Consider Bellevue Square (700 Bellevue Way NE, Bellevue, WA 98004). There are five separate charging sites all within a 300 meter radius circle and all in covered parking garages so GPS coordinates will be spotty at best (probably a reading from before the vehicle entered the garage). Two of the sites are 5 feet apart and yet so different they should be treated separately (four 208V/30A public ChargePoint stations and a Tesla-only area with one each Model S and Roadster 208V/70A HPWC). None of the maps I checked (OCM, PlugShare, ChargePoint, US DOE) has it right even if we allow lumping the Tesla stations and ChargePoint stations together.
> For example, in OCM the pin for OCM-4350 is in the wrong place by about 100m (and is marked as private restricted access). OCM-4310 is in the right place for a nearby site, correctly marked as public, but only reports 2 stations when there are four. OCM-4311 looks like a duplicate of OCM-4310 but is in the wrong place by about 50 m and says it's private restricted access. I could be charging at OCM-4350 and even if I had perfect GPS coordinates by some miracle, I'd be closer to the arguably bogus OCM-4311 location. Any attempt to map from the OCM site record to another vendor's site database will definitely fail.
> So I vote for not geofencing; let the charge map folks do that (perhaps with help from the OVMS app user). It would be great to have a way to map each report to a charge site ID as long as that's flexible enough to allow IDs from multiple map vendors. If I'm using OCM, I'd want to map to an OCM site ID. If I'm using another map, I want to be able to associate my report with their ID.
> I'm really looking forward to having a charging station map that will let me find, and report status on, high-amp L2 stations.
> BTW, it looks like OCM needs to grab the stations from the Sun Country Highway network. I have a Perl script that will do it which I'm happy to share.
> On 5/23/14, 1:23 AM, "Mark Webb-Johnson" <mark at webb-johnson.net> wrote:
> I think there is a difference between the charging database (locations) and events (charge start/stop by a particular user at a particular time).
> We chose OCM (or did OCM choose us ;-) precisely because we didn’t need another charging database. Both the Android and iPhone Apps have some integration to OCM already.
> I suggest the data records for charge events that we publish should be keyed on geofencing of the latitude+longitude of the charging event. The OCM station ID can be optionally provided by the user, and other consumers could cross-reference that to provide correlation to their own databases (if they think it necessary and can abide to the OCM license terms).
> Regards, Mark
> On 23 May, 2014, at 4:15 pm, Paul Churchley <paul at churchley.org> wrote:
>> I can see your point Lee.
>> I see OCM slightly different in that I see it as just one of many potential charging databases out there that OVMS may want to interact with. By using OCM as the charging database of OVMS you remove all aspect of control over the data. The data collected by the OVMS users belongs to them, and by inference to OVMS. Just giving it to OCM as our datastore means that OVMS only has "acces"s to that data via the OCM API... we wouldn't have control over the data itself. We would have lost all element of direct control including where it goes to after OCM. That would then be down to OCM.
>> If those issues could be overcome, of if people consider these points unimportant, then we could use the OCM database as "our" database I suppose.
>> Perhaps OCM and OVMS would like to merge projects? Then this issue goes away :-) Just a thought :-)
>> Smartphone apps are great but I believe that the best place to do location relatively complex and comms-dependent tasks; such as matching, sending updates to OCM etc, is on the OVMS server. What if there is a new database that OVMS wants to update also? The phone app would need updating and every user would need to update their app. In fact, some of that code might be pretty big or complex and that would then reside on relatively low-powered phone devices instead of the server. I wouldn't see this as a batch task. It could still be real-time and triggered by the phone app.
>> On 22 May 2014 23:44, Lee Howard <lee.howard at mainpine.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/22/2014 02:49 PM, Tom Saxton wrote:
>>>> I'd like to make sure that whatever happens with OVMS reporting charging
>>>> station information stays open and stand-alone, not tied exclusively to
>>> Is OCM not open-enough already that it could simply be viewed as the charging-location database for OVMS? Why should OVMS duplicate the effort of developing a charging-location database?
>>> *Lee Howard*
>>> *Mainpine, Inc. Chief Technology Officer*
>>> Tel: +1 866 363 6680 | Fax: +1 360 462 8160
>>> lee.howard at mainpine.com | www.mainpine.com
>>> OvmsDev mailing list
>>> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
>> OvmsDev mailing list
>> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
> _______________________________________________ OvmsDev mailing list OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
> OvmsDev mailing list
> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OvmsDev