Talk:Intelligent transportation system

"'When these systems were first introduced', some drivers resisted them, viewing them as a way for management to spy on the driver. Only a foolish management would use it this way. ... If management treats drivers as the heroes they often are" -- Is this NPOV?

Management must be foolish, then. UPS used this system to unionbust by tracking when trucks would meet up, thus determining that drivers were talking to each other. Graft

With regards to the "Virtual TMC", is that a repeat of TMC meaning Traffic Message Channel, or is it the TMC that stands for Traffic Management Center and is synonymous with TOC (Traffic Operations Center)? Should probably be clarified...The Literate Engineer 00:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming it means Traffic Management Center. A virtual one would be, e.g., web-based. -- Super Aardvark 18:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The story about the growth of suburbia, just to name one, is very USA-centric. I added the "globalize" template Samfreed 10:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Main thing this article needs as far as cleanup is some better organization. For starters, a better introduction, with a more universal statement about ITS technologies and mentioning things like the evolution of the "ITS" name from "IVHS (Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems)" could be used. Then, a real organization of the content, likely with sub-pages for basic, broad categories: traveller information, vehicle control, roadway management, etc. And a shift from list-based to paragraph-based content would be good... I started that by deleting the "Outline" list. The Literate Engineer 00:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Literate Engineer,

I have reviewed Intelligent transportation system article and have the following comments: First, it is WP customary practice to post a clean-up tag and then wait 3-5 days before commencing the actual clean-up deletion process. We don't want to throw out the baby with the water, and therefore Literate Wikipedians should be afforded the chance to review the good and the bad and suggest accordingly. If you agree with me, please revert the page back and let's allow for community consensus to elaborate on the findings and propose accordingly -- if nobody responds, then let's speedily delete. :) Best regards --Lperez2029 14:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit I made is reviewable here: [1]. What I removed was, I believe, deadwood. It did not describe anything, it merely presented a list of dates and technology names without any context. As such, I considered it to be nothing more than poorly formatted jargon that made the article unneccessarily large and reduced its accessibility to non-experts. I did not expect its removal to be controversial, and so I did not consider building a consensus beforehand to be necessary, which as I understand the cleanup tag & process is the only reason someone who has the will and ability to begin at once should not do so. The Literate Engineer 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I have to agree with you there was certainly a lot of deadwood in the article - but still, it is always a good idea to establish some consensus with the community before speedy deletion takes place - unless, of course, the material is considered improper, but that's not the case here -- anyway, I plan for extensive revamping of this article so I look forward to your input, contributions, and support in the matter. No deadwood, just the plain facts. Let me know what you think (and don't worry about having thrown out some good stuff along with the bad, I'll replace it.) Take good care --Lperez2029 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I find very little in the article that deals primarily with ITS in any specific country -- therefore it appears the article represents a worldwide view of the subject. Additionally, extensive cleanup and contributions continue to make the article Wikiproof. Does anyone else have any comments or opinions before I remove the 'Worldview' tag? --Lperez2029 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Realtime -- it appears realtime is nowadays the most used, abused, and misused word in the telematics industry. All should read and understand the methodology that enables "Real-time" systems hardware software computing before utilizing the term in a form of speech for systems applications (or Wikipedia articles for that matter). That's why I deleted it. --Lperez2029 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I deleted your last entry (it appears that everything you have posted on WP has been the subject of deletion). I checked out your web site and I think you have good intentions but please contribute to the article first by expanding it -- Actually, it is Wikipedia policy to contribute encyclopedic material and crossreference information including external links where applicable. Contributions are needed to the article - not just the random addition of links. Don't get discouraged, but I would suggest that you may first consider commencing the writeup of an article of your own, reference it, polish, perfect it, share it with the community for opinion on where the article should reside, and then publish it. Please also keep in mind that Wikipedia is more about Quality, not quantity. Best regards, Thank you, and good luck! --Lperez2029 14:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Floating Car Data and Floating Cellular Data are identical terminologies in operation and performance because they are used for the same purpose of estimating traffic flow progression. Does anyone have any objections to the convergence of both separate terms to "Floating Cellular Car Data? Please comment. --Lperez2029 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are therefore creating a new terminology. Merge the sections, yes, but explain that there are two similar acronyms... perhaps call the section FCD and then explain the acronym in the opening sentence — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 01:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I've noticed it's already been done — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

'Floating Cellular Vehicle Data' best defines the use of the technology because it also applies to motorcycles, buses, trucks and the motorized vehicle in general. Plus, it's the cellular signal that floats, not the vehicle. --Lperez2029 13:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Telematics Solutions Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia - Research, Consulting, & Training web site (except for the home page) need to be translated to English (for the English WP). Also, There appears to be a lack of information to warrant link inclusion under 'Service providers' or 'Systems developers'. A suggestion is made to complete translation of web site pages to English, then, perhaps consider entry under new Research, Consulting, & Training section. Does anyone else have any comments? --Lperez2029 23:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Every time I see a new link get added, all I can think of is WP:EL and WP:SPAM... unless criteria is specified for the following external link sections, I intend to remove them entirely:

• ITS Service providers
• ITS Management services
• ITS Systems developers

--Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 15:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget WP:NOT. In case this needs a second opinion or moral support, here it is. Femto 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ahh yes, there is certainly no shortage of policies. I have removed the above 3 sections. I recommend that someone consider working ITS News & information and ITS Interest (working) groups directly into the article as footnoted references and remove those sections, as well. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I removed additional 'unsupported' material -- thanks for helping with the cleanup process! --Lperez2029 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can I suggest that inclusion of Parking Guidance and Information (PGI) systems into applications - See DfT PGI Traffic Advisory Leaflet for info.

Also, related to this, Variable Message Signs into technologies.

This could also lead into something regarding [Urban Traffic Management and Control].

Any thoughts on the merits of inclusion, or possibly seperate articles on these subjects?

Thanks Kinkladze28 12:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

81.200.0.185 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Why there is no russian language? Can anybody translate these articles?Reply

I'm not a native speaker, but shouldn't the title of this article be Intelligent Transport Systems as the term is defined by the European Commission for example? See Article 4: Definitions in DIRECTIVE 2010/40/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.112.86.186 (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I feel that the most commonly used sensor technology, at least for mobile measuring stations, is missing: rubber tubes. Sure, they are not as fancy as video or loops, but they are extremely easy to operate, cheap, reliable and give more information than any other sensor type to date. Two tubes, using the METOR counter as an example, give reliable information on direction, type of vehicle (15 different types), speed (down to 0.5 km/h accuracy), passing time (down to 1/1000 of a second) and every single axle distance, on every vehicle.

Now, as I work in this field, I feel that it wouldn't be proper for me to write about it (no original research), so I'll just point it out in the hope that someone else better qualified will do it. 88.131.91.2 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just found out (after editing) that the section Bluetooth Detection was possibly copy/pasted from this URL by IP 93.161.197.190:

http://www.bliptrack.com/traffic/

See revision 498657750 203.24.101.3 (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Propose moving content of Vehicular communication systems. That article doesn't have enough recent, referenced material to stand on its own. In any case inter-vehicle comms make a lot more sense in the context of a network. --Cornellier (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oppose and hence removing tag which is only on this article, not on the other. It looks fine on its own tome, and has 12 refs, which is sufficient. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think that in the article the work made by ETSI (http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/intelligent-transport) is missing. It is really important to say that, beside ERTICO, ETSI promotes the ITS worldwide (and especially in Europe) by pushing standards. Crazy-nomce 23:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy-nomce (talk • contribs)

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): QiweiDuan (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by QiweiDuan (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply