- Who runs it
- Provincie Groningen
- Can it affect people?
- Possibly. It may shape what people see, are recommended, flagged, or prioritised for.
- Possible rights impact: Indirect public effect
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- RISM-inspectie / Netherlands Algorithm Register / 2025-02-05
- Netherlands Algorithm Register - official inventory / Netherlands Algorithm Register
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
What it does
Het doel van dit algoritme is om de inspecties ten behoeve van de verkeersveiligheid zo efficient mogelijk te laten verlopen. Dit heeft als gewenst resultaat dat de verkeersveiligheid verhoogd wordt en dat dit zo efficient mogelijk gebeurt met minder belemmeringen voor weggebruikers.
If this affects someone
De output van het algoritme is een weerspiegeling van de feiten. De output wordt door een expert van Royal HaskoningDHV geïnterpreteerd en beoordeeld, waarna de expert de bevindingen in een adviesrapport doorstuurt naar de Provincie. Vervolgens beoordeelt de Provincie zelf of, en waar, eventueel obstakels verwijderd moeten worden.
De gegevens die het algoritme gebruikt zijn LiDAR- en camerabeelden welke samen een beeld geven van de wegen en de directe omgeving.
Sources and further reading
First indexed from Netherlands Algorithm Register on 2026-09-28. Only usable fields from the public record are shown; missing answers remain blank.
Fields were mapped from the linked public record by deterministic code. No generative model wrote this text.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- Provincie Groningen
- Life area
- Public sector
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 2
- updated
- 21 months ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported36 days agoPartialImported from Netherlands Algorithm Register.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.