Access Points can include quality ratings in metadata fields such as star-level, date of evaluation, and evaluation method (self-assessed or third-party). This supports transparency for data users. No strict harmonisation is yet mandated.
The RTTI 5-star rating framework offers several strategic and operational advantages for road authorities:
The rating system is not just about compliance—it enables smarter planning, clearer accountability, and more trusted traffic information ecosystems.
The specification includes an option for RTTI messages to carry a unique ID. Having such an ID supports traceability, allowing poor-quality events to be linked back to their origin for diagnosis and targeted correction.
Currently, such loops exist in limited bilateral forms. The RTTI 5-star rating specification plans to support structured feedback loops in the future to help authorities understand how their data is used and where it may need improvement.
There are no plans for a global repository. However, some countries or regions combine efforts around RTTI quality. For example, NAPCORE coordinates European Member States, while Austroads and ANCAP collaborate in Australasia.
Yes. The results are available upon request. Please contact TISA for access.
Both self-assessment and third-party validation are allowed. Central coordination of how ratings are issued may emerge over time to ensure comparability.
Against the RTTI 5-star rating specification and the evaluation methodology under development. Certain attributes can be evaluated directly from the feed through desk research, while others require field validation using statistically sound sample sizes based on the population of events.
Authorities may validate their own data or work with third parties. They are encouraged to compare reported data with observations from the field or operations. This will also help them assess the quality of data delivered by their contractors or subcontractors.
Yes. RTTI event message IDs enable events to be traced from cloud services back to the source, enabling a form of feedback. Currently, the specification does not elaborate on this in detail. It could become a future Priority Use Case (PUC).
Ground truth is essential but depends on the use case. The pilots explore practical approaches to define and apply ground truth comparisons. This will be further elaborated in the evaluation methodology.
No single central solution is planned yet. However, consistency across regions may require some coordinated governance for rating issuance.
Yes. Feedback has been collected through the RTTI Task Force and from pilot participants, including DRD (Danish Road Directorate).
It’s flexible. Road authorities can self-assess or coordinate through national or third-party evaluators.
Yes. The topic is addressed through pilots and will be formalised in the evaluation methodology.
The specification acknowledges the relevance of accurate data such as speed limits for ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) and C-ITS (Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems) use cases. However, it is not as strict as some ADAS/C-ITS specifications and aims for broader applicability.
Yes. Feed data can be split into event-level assessments to capture intra-feed variability.
Yes. More pilots are expected and encouraged. The DRD (Danish Road Directorate) pilot is seen as a valuable reference for others.
TISA is very well connected with the industry. Regular alignment with other groups — including, but not limited to, NAPCORE and C-Roads — has occurred and will continue going forward.
This will be addressed by the TISA RTTI 5‑Star Rating Steering Working Group, which will define new use cases in consultation with stakeholders.