By assuming that the 'average person' is unable to collect relevant hazard information, are we not claiming that only empirical top-down information should be considered? Shouldn't place-based knowledge systems be the most relevant systems for place-based hazards...that is "things that are on the ground"? Isn't this counter intuitive to initiatives to 'democratize' data?
I have no input as to whether this type of information should be incorporated into OSM. I think both Kate and Stéphane have valid points. Just food for thought. Best, Eric On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Kate Chapman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stéphane, > > The issue I see is more that it will depend on the type of hazard data. > OpenStreetMap is usually used to map things that are visible on the > ground. I see it being difficult for some types of hazards to be collected > by the average person (not to say for some types it isn't easier). I'm not > saying it is less relevant to humanitarian actors, I'm saying that it > perhaps is better in another store and to be compared with OpenStreetMap > data. > > People combine data with OSM data all the time. Everything isn't either > an in or out proposition. I think it is important to have relevant and > updatable information in OSM and be able to utilize it with other > information that might be less practical for us to collect. > > -Kate > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Stéphane Henriod <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Kate, >> >> I am browsing through inasafe website and it seems indeed pretty >> interesting and relevant for the issues I raised in my first email. >> >> However, I believe that it is complementary rather than conflicting: what >> I would aim at is the possibility to collect hazard data in an >> OSM-compliant format that could, in turn, be used for risk analysis, for >> example with InaSAFE. >> >> I see your point that hazard data (flood-prone areas, recurrent >> landslides, seismic zones...) might need to be located out of the main OSM >> DB, but I would be interested to read whether this opinion is mostly shared >> by other HOT members? What I mean is: is the hazard data really less >> relevant to the humanitarian and to the overall communities than the >> blocked roads, the IDPs locations or the Search and Rescue zones? IMHO, >> they would fall in the same category, so either everything in the main OSM >> DB, or everything out of it. Does that sound silly? >> >> Thanks a lot for replying to me, and looking forward to engage the >> discussion with any other member that would feel interested! >> >> >> Stéphane >> -- >> "Le mot progrès n'aura aucun sens tant qu'il y aura des enfants >> malheureux" -- Albert Einstein >> >> "A journey does not need reasons. Before long, it proves to be reason >> enough in itself. One thinks that one is going to make a journey, yet soon >> it is the journey that makes or unmakes you." -- Nicolas Bouvier >> >> Photos de voyages, photos de montagne: http://www.henriod.info >> >> Skype: [image: Skype name: marmotte_la_gueuse] >> Tajik mobile phone: +992 934 62 46 62 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 17:06, Kate Chapman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello Stéphane, >>> >>> I don't think it would really make sense to add many of those types of >>> hazards to OpenStreetMap. We've collected information such as areas >>> prone to flooding before but the actual hazard models should probably >>> stay separate. They can be combined with OpenStreetMap information >>> however to create impact models. >>> >>> This is something currently being done by AIFDR and GFDRR with >>> InaSAFE: https://github.com/AIFDR/inasafe >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -Kate >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Stéphane Henriod <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > I am relatively new to OSM and completely new to Humanitarian OSM but >>> > extremely enthusiastic about both projects and would like to >>> contribute in a >>> > way that I will describe below, and for which I would appreciate your >>> > feedback and ideas. >>> > >>> > Most humanitarian actors agree that the best response to an emergency >>> is >>> > preparedness, not only in terms of behaviors but also data. What >>> strikes me >>> > when I look at HOSM data model is that I don't see anything for natural >>> > hazard delineation, for example. When responding to a crisis, >>> humanitarian >>> > actors might want to know in advance where to expect landslides, >>> avalanches >>> > and floods areas (for their own safety but also to "predict" where >>> roads >>> > might be blocked or where facilities might have been affected). Seismic >>> > zonation is something that can be directly included in OSM; oldish >>> data is >>> > freely available from the GSHAP project, while the GlobalEarthquake >>> Model >>> > will provide with a more modern version in a few years. >>> > >>> > My question to the active and experienced members of the community is >>> thus >>> > the following: would you see any relevance to develop classes for >>> natural >>> > (and man-made?) hazards to be included in HOSM framework? >>> > >>> > As we can not expect the communities to have the technical knowledge of >>> > hazard scientists, the ontology would have to remain quite simple, >>> which is >>> > probably ok for humanitarian actors (who cares whether it's a >>> landslide, a >>> > rockfall or a debris flow? a general category "earth mass movement" >>> might be >>> > sufficient for our purpose). Also, a distinction should be made between >>> > "usual" events (those that occur relatively frequently but that might >>> or >>> > might not be currently triggered) and actual events (that have been >>> actually >>> > triggered). >>> > >>> > Many challenges ahead but before diving into it, I would like to check >>> with >>> > you if this idea has already been discussed and if it makes sense to >>> pursue >>> > it. >>> > >>> > Thanks a lot in advance and look forward to reading your comments, >>> > >>> > Stéphane >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > "Le mot progrès n'aura aucun sens tant qu'il y aura des enfants >>> malheureux" >>> > -- Albert Einstein >>> > >>> > "A journey does not need reasons. Before long, it proves to be reason >>> enough >>> > in itself. One thinks that one is going to make a journey, yet soon it >>> is >>> > the journey that makes or unmakes you." -- Nicolas Bouvier >>> > >>> > Photos de voyages, photos de montagne: http://www.henriod.info >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > HOT mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >>> > >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> HOT mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > >
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
