SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
01-februar-2018
1DGRPHãþD
SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2014
(OHNWURQVNRSRELUDQMHSULVWRMELQ,]YDMDQMH]DUDþXQDYDQMDGHO2NYLUQLSRJRML
]DSUHYHUMDQMH,6276
Electronic fee collection - Charging performance - Part 2: Examination framework
(ISO/TS 17444-2:2017)
Elektronische Gebührenerhebung - Abbuchungsdurchführung - Teil 2:
Rahmenbedingungen für Prüfungen (ISO/TS 17444-2:2017)
Perception du télépéage - Performance d'imputation - Partie 2: Cadre d'examen (ISO/TS
17444-2:2017)
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2017
ICS:
03.220.20 Cestni transport Road transport
35.240.60 Uporabniške rešitve IT v IT applications in transport
prometu
SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018 en,fr,de
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018

---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018


CEN ISO/TS 17444-2
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION

SPÉCIFICATION TECHNIQUE

November 2017
TECHNISCHE SPEZIFIKATION
ICS 03.220.20; 35.240.60 Supersedes CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2013
English Version

Electronic fee collection - Charging performance - Part 2:
Examination framework (ISO/TS 17444-2:2017)
Perception du télépéage - Performance d'imputation - Elektronische Gebührenerhebung -
Partie 2: Cadre d'examen (ISO/TS 17444-2:2017) Abbuchungsdurchführung - Teil 2:
Rahmenbedingungen für Prüfungen (ISO/TS 17444-
2:2017)
This Technical Specification (CEN/TS) was approved by CEN on 27 August 2017 for provisional application.

The period of validity of this CEN/TS is limited initially to three years. After two years the members of CEN will be requested to
submit their comments, particularly on the question whether the CEN/TS can be converted into a European Standard.

CEN members are required to announce the existence of this CEN/TS in the same way as for an EN and to make the CEN/TS
available promptly at national level in an appropriate form. It is permissible to keep conflicting national standards in force (in
parallel to the CEN/TS) until the final decision about the possible conversion of the CEN/TS into an EN is reached.

CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey and United Kingdom.





EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION

EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
© 2017 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 (E)
Contents Page
European foreword . 3

2

---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 (E)
European foreword
This document (CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2017) has been prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 204
“Intelligent transport systems” in collaboration with Technical Committee CEN/TC 278 “Intelligent
transport systems” the secretariat of which is held by NEN.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
This document supersedes CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2013.
According to the CEN-CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organizations of the
following countries are bound to announce this Technical Specification: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey and the United Kingdom.
Endorsement notice
The text of ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 has been approved by CEN as CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 without any
modification.

3

---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018

---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
TECHNICAL ISO/TS
SPECIFICATION 17444-2
Second edition
2017-09
Electronic fee collection — Charging
performance —
Part 2:
Examination framework
Perception du télépéage — Performance d'imputation —
Partie 2: Cadre d'examen
Reference number
ISO/TS 17444-2:2017(E)
©
ISO 2017

---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
ISO/TS 17444-2:2017(E)

COPYRIGHT PROTECTED DOCUMENT
© ISO 2017, Published in Switzerland
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior
written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below or ISO’s member body in the country of
the requester.
ISO copyright office
Ch. de Blandonnet 8 • CP 401
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland
Tel. +41 22 749 01 11
Fax +41 22 749 09 47
copyright@iso.org
www.iso.org
ii © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
ISO/TS 17444-2:2017(E)

Contents Page
Foreword .vi
Introduction .vii
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 2
4 Symbols and abbreviated terms . 6
5 Examination Framework . 7
5.1 General . 7
5.2 Method for defining a Specific Examination Framework . 8
5.2.1 General. 8
5.2.2 Selection of metrics to be evaluated . 9
5.2.3 Definition of environmental conditions and associated
performance requirements . . 9
5.2.4 Determination of Required Sample Sizes . 9
5.2.5 Selection of methods for generating Charging Input and Reference Data .10
5.2.6 Determination of Test Routes/Subset of Charged Network for generating
representative trips .10
5.2.7 Documentation of the Specific Examination Framework .10
5.3 Sources of data .10
5.4 Methods of generating charging input .13
5.4.1 General.13
5.4.2 Predefined routes (identifier: “PVP”) .14
5.4.3 Reference System (used in combination with identifiers: “PVR” and “UVR”) .15
5.4.4 Simulated OBE/FE (identifier: “SO”) .16
5.4.5 Dedicated OBE Testing (identifier: “DO”) .17
5.5 Applicability of metrics scheme types .17
5.6 Charging Metric Selection Tables .22
5.6.1 General.22
5.6.2 DSRC Discrete .22
5.6.3 Autonomous Discrete .23
5.6.4 Autonomous Continuous .24
6 Examination Tests .26
6.1 Common (and DSRC Discrete) Examination Tests .26
6.1.1 General.26
6.1.2 ET-CM-E2E-1 E2E — Correct Charging Rate .26
6.1.3 ET-CM-E2E-2 E2E — Overcharging Rate .27
6.1.4 ET-CM-E2E-3 E2E — Undercharging Rate.27
6.1.5 ET-CM-E2E-4 E2E — Late Charging Rate .28
6.1.6 ET-CM-UA-1 UA — Correct Charging Rate .29
6.1.7 ET-CM-UA-2 UA — Overcharging Rate .29
6.1.8 ET-CM-UA-3 UA — Undercharging Rate .30
6.1.9 ET-CM-UA-4 UA — Accurate application of Payments and Refunds .31
6.1.10 ET-CM-UA-5 UA — Accurate Personalisation of OBUs .31
6.1.11 ET-CM-PC-1 PC — Correct Charging Rate .32
6.1.12 ET-CM-PC-2 PC — Overcharging Rate .32
6.1.13 ET-CM-PC-3 PC — Undercharging Rate .33
6.1.14 ET-CM-PC-4 PC — Latency — TC .34
6.1.15 ET-CM-PC-5 PC — Late Payment Claims Rate .34
6.1.16 ET-CM-PC-6 PC — Rejected Payment Claim Rate .35
6.1.17 ET-CM-BD-1 BD — Correct Charging Rate.35
6.1.18 ET-CM-BD-2 BD — Overcharging Rate .36
6.1.19 ET-CM-BD-3 BD — Undercharging Rate .37
© ISO 2017 – All rights reserved iii

---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
ISO/TS 17444-2:2017(E)

6.1.20 ET-CM-BD-4 BD — Incorrect Charging Rate .37
6.1.21 ET-CM-BD-5 BD — Latency — TC .38
6.1.22 ET-CM-BD-6 BD — Late Billing Details Rate .38
6.1.23 ET-CM-BD-7 BD — Rejected Billing Details Rate .39
6.1.24 ET-CM-BD-8 BD — Incorrectly rejected Billing Details Rate .39
6.1.25 ET-CM-BD-9 BD — Inferred Billing Details Rate .40
6.2 DSRC Discrete — Optional DSRC Toll Declaration Metrics .40
6.2.1 General.40
6.2.2 ET-CM-TD-1 TD — Correct Toll Declaration Generation Rate .40
6.2.3 ET-CM-TD-2 TD — Incorrect Toll Declaration Generation Rate .41
6.2.4 ET-CM-TD-3 TD — Late Toll Declarations Rate .41
6.2.5 ET-CM-TD-4 TD — TSP Charge Parameter Change Rate .42
6.2.6 ET-CM-TD-5 TD — TSP False Positive Rate .42
6.3 Autonomous Discrete Specific Examination Tests .43
6.3.1 General.43
6.3.2 ET-CM-TD-1 TD — Correct Toll Declaration Generation Rate .43
6.3.3 ET-CM-TD-2 TD — Incorrect Toll Declaration Generation Rate .43
6.3.4 ET-CM-TD-3 TD — Late Toll Declarations Rate .44
6.3.5 ET-CM-TD-4 TD — TSP Charge Parameter Change Rate .44
6.3.6 ET-CM-TD-5 TD — TSP False Positive Rate .45
6.3.7 ET-CM-DTD-1 DTD — Correct Charging Rate (charge object detections) .45
6.3.8 ET-CM-DTD-2 DTD — Incorrect Charge Event Recognition Rate .46
6.3.9 ET-CM-DTD-3 DTD — Missed Charge Object Detection Rate .46
6.3.10 ET-CM-DTD-4 DTD Overcharging Rate .47
6.3.11 ET-CM-CR-1 CR — Correct Charge Report Generation Rate .47
6.3.12 ET-CM-CR-2 CR — Incorrect Charge Report Generation Rate .48
6.3.13 ET-CM-CR-3 CR — Charge Report Latency .48
6.3.14 ET-CM-CR-4 CR — TSP Front End Charge Parameter Change Rate .49
6.3.15 ET-CM-CR-5 CR — TSP Front End False Positive Rate .49
6.3.16 ET-CM-DCR-1 DCR — Correct Charging Rate (charge object detections) .50
6.3.17 ET-CM-DCR-2 DCR — Incorrect Charge Event Recognition Rate .50
6.3.18 ET-CM-DCR-3 DCR — Missed Charge Object Detection Rate .51
6.3.19 ET-CM-DCR-4 DCR — Overcharging rate (Incorrect false positive Charge
Event Recognition) .51
6.4 Autonomous Continuous Specific Examination Tests .52
6.4.1 General.52
6.4.2 ET-CM-TD-1 TD — Correct Toll Declaration Generation Rate .52
6.4.3 ET-CM-TD-2 TD — Incorrect Toll Declaration Generation Rate .52
6.4.4 ET-CM-TD-3 TD — Late Toll Declarations Rate .53
6.4.5 ET-CM-TD-4 TD — TSP Charge Parameter Change Rate .53
6.4.6 ET-CM-TD-5 TD — TSP False Positive Rate .54
6.4.7 ET-CM-CTD-1 CTD Correct Charging Rate .54
6.4.8 ET-CM-CTD-2 CTD Overcharging Rate .55
6.4.9 ET-CM-CTD-3 CTD Accuracy of Distance/Time Measurement .55
6.4.10 ET-CM-CR-1 CR — Correct Charge Report Generation Rate .56
6.4.11 ET-CM-CR-2 CR — Incorrect Charge Report Generation Rate .56
6.4.12 ET-CM-CR-3 CR — Charge Report Latency .57
6.4.13 ET-CM-CR-4 CR — TSP Front End Charge Parameter Change Rate .57
6.4.14 ET-CM-CR-5 CR — TSP Front End False Positive Rate .58
6.4.15 ET-CM-CCR-1 CCR — Correct Charging Rate .58
6.4.16 ET-CM-CCR-2 CCR — Overcharging Rate .59
6.4.17 ET-CM-CCR-3 CCR — Accuracy of Distance/Time Measurement .59
Annex A (informative) Examination Test documentation template .61
Annex B (informative) Examination Framework considerations .62
Annex C (informative) Statistical considerations .66
iv © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
ISO/TS 17444-2:2017(E)

Annex D (informative) Methods for reducing sample sizes for very high/low probability
metrics during the Evaluation Phase .72
Annex E (informative) Example-specific Examination Frameworks .76
Bibliography .93
© ISO 2017 – All rights reserved v

---------------------- Page: 11 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
ISO/TS 17444-2:2017(E)

Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www.iso.org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation on the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and
expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO's adherence to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), see the following
URL: www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 204, Intelligent transport systems.
This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO/TS 17444-2:2013), which has been
revised with the following changes:
— editorial and formal corrections, as well as changes, to improve readability;
— updated terminology.
A list of all parts in the ISO/TS 17444 series can be found on the ISO website.
vi © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 12 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
ISO/TS 17444-2:2017(E)

Introduction
Electronic tolling systems are complex distributed systems involving critical technology such as
dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) and global navigation satellite systems (GNSS), both
subject to a certain random behaviour that may affect the computation of the charges. Thus, in
order to protect the interests of the different involved stakeholders, in particular Service Users and
Toll Chargers, it is essential to define metrics that measure the performance of the system as far as
computation of charges is concerned and ensure that the potential resulting errors in terms of size and
probability are acceptable. These metrics will be an essential tool when establishing requirements for
the systems and also for examination of the system capabilities both during acceptance and during the
operational life of the system.
In addition, in order to ensure the interoperability of different systems, it will be necessary to agree on
common metrics to be used and on the actual values that define the required acceptable performances
although this is not covered in this document.
This document is defined as a toolbox standard of examination tests plus a method for defining and
documenting Specific Examination Frameworks to meet specific needs. The detailed choice of the set
of examination tests within an Examination Framework depends on the application and the respective
context. Compliance with this specification is understood as using the definitions and prescriptions
laid out in this document whenever the respective system aspects are subjected to performance
measurements, rather than using other definitions and examination methods than the ones specified in
this document.
ISO/TS 17444-1 defines a set of charging performance metrics with appropriate definitions, principles
and formulations, which together make up a reference framework for the establishment of requirements
for EFC systems and their later examination of the charging performance.
These charging performance metrics are intended for use with any toll scheme, regardless of its
technical underpinnings, system architecture, tariff structure, geographical coverage, or organizational
model. They are defined to treat technical details that may be different among technologies as a “black
box”. They focus solely on the outcome of the charging process, i.e. the amount charged in relation
to a pre-measured or theoretically correct amount, rather than intermediate variables from various
components as sensors, such as positioning accuracy, signal range, or optical resolution. This approach
ensures comparable results for each metric in all relevant situations.
The metrics are designed to cover the information exchanged on the front-end interface and the
interoperability interfaces between Toll Service Providers and Toll Chargers, as well as information on
the end-to-end level.
Metrics for the following information exchanges are defined:
— Charge Reports;
— Toll Declarations;
— Billing Details and associated event data;
— Payment Claims on the level of user accounts;
— End-to-End Metrics which assess the overall performance of the charging process.
The proposed metrics are specifically addressed to protect the interests of the actors in a toll system,
such as Toll Service Providers, Toll Chargers and Service Users. The metrics can be used to define
requirements (e.g. for requests for proposals) and for performance assessment.
© ISO 2017 – All rights reserved vii

---------------------- Page: 13 ----------------------

SIST-TS CEN ISO/TS 17444-2:2018
ISO/TS 17444-2:2017(E)

Toll schemes take on various forms as identified in the ISO 17575 series and ISO 14906. In order to
create a uniform performance metric specification, toll schemes are grouped into two classes based on
the character of their primary charging variable:
— charging based on discrete events (charges associated to the fact that a vehicle is crossing or
standing within a certain zone);
— those based on a continuous measurement (duration or distance).
In all these toll schemes, tolls may additionally vary as a function of vehicle class characteristics such
as trailer presence, number of axles, taxation class, operating function, and depending on time of day or
day of week, such that, for example, tariffs are higher in rush hour and lower on the weekends.
With this degree of complexity, it is not surprising to find that the attempts to evaluate and compare
technical solutions for Service User charging have been made uniquely each time a procurement
or study is initiated, and with only limited ability to reuse prior comparisons made by other testing
entities.
Examination Framework
The Examination Framework that is defined in this document is designed for measuring the metrics
defined in ISO/TS 17444-1. The general aim is to achieve a maximum co
...