4 ms·

In dense urban areas, there are probably a lot of scooters within a 100m x 100m block.

• sokoloff 7y ago
  I think that's the point of the suggestion.
  • SilasX 7y ago
    The "point" was to ensure privacy while satisfying the other desiderata of the the system, which includes ability to find a distinct scooter. I was disputing that it met the latter criteria by grouping too many scooters together (Scylla) in its attempt to avoid privacy violation (Charybdis). After all, why not just lump scooters into the east vs west coast? Though I grant the general point that making the drop-off location more granular could satisfy both criteria, but you would need some kind of varying size to account for scooter density.
    • steve_gh 7y ago
      If you can count how many scooters are in the system at any time (and how many belong to different providers) then you should be able to enforce your licencing regime. And if you know roughly where rides are going to / from and when, then that helps you integrate your different types of public transport - for example making sure that when the train arrives there are enough scooters there, or understanding how popular scooter ride paths interact with bike lanes, bus lanes, etc. Mobile phone cell size is generally a pretty good proxy for population density - modern micro-cell sectors can be pretty small, and 5G will make them even small in urban areas. (I work on this sort of stuff for a major engineering data science and asset management group in the UK).
    • malandrew 7y ago
      > which includes ability to find a distinct scooter I understand why a company needs to find a distinct schooter, but why does the city need the ability to find a distinct scooter?