I think what is important to think about are two points: 1. Which data is relevant for inclusion in OpenStreetMap 2. Which data is relevant for disaster preparedness and planning and should be open
These two things aren't a one to one relation. HOT's mission is to provide free geodata for use in response and preparedness for disasters. Yes this usually translates to OpenStreetMap, but I think there are occasions where it would not. On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Eric Lovell <[email protected]>wrote: > 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
