Adding other data layers is an important use of the OSM base map. Crisis Mappers frequently use Ushahidi as a platform for simplified addition of these kinds of reports. Ushahidi layers can be exported.
Harvard's WorldMap is fairly new and provides a bit more of an "import layers and create a 'view' that can be shared with others". A few folks have tried to create a more social mapping space, but so far, no single recognized one has become the 'Facebook' of crisis data. OSM is more of a solid reference layer to add other stuff 'to'. Sent from my phone. May contain incom plete thoughts. On Apr 4, 2012, at 16:03, [email protected] wrote: > Send HOT mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of HOT digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Including natural hazards in the HOSM data model? > (Kate Chapman) > 2. Re: Including natural hazards in the HOSM data model? > (St?phane Henriod) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:53:09 -0700 > From: Kate Chapman <[email protected]> > To: Eric Lovell <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [HOT] Including natural hazards in the HOSM data model? > Message-ID: > <cagn7morswtx3vazaqs38sus6izvnyuu6w+e86ofeuwfictq...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > 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 St?phane have valid points. >> Just food for thought. >> >> Best, >> >> Eric >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Kate Chapman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi St?phane, >>> >>> 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, St?phane 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! >>>> >>>> >>>> St?phane >>>> -- >>>> "Le mot progr?s 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 St?phane, >>>>> >>>>> 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, St?phane 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, >>>>>> >>>>>> St?phane >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> "Le mot progr?s 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/attachments/20120404/f0170344/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 22:03:11 +0200 > From: St?phane Henriod <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [HOT] Including natural hazards in the HOSM data model? > Message-ID: > <CAK6pVBXufhztNcEGwq=M7kG9=rsdMfsbZMF9ib=uessesob...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thank you all for your replies! > > So let's try to keep the ball rolling, as I think we are now touching > something very interesting for HOT... > > @Kate and Eric: "OpenStreetMap is usually used to map things that are > visible on the ground" and "the 'average person' is unable to collect > relevant hazard information" > > Let's leave the seismic hazard on the side for now (and other "exotic" > hazards, such as tsunami, flash flood or drought, as they have very > different onset mechanisms) and let's focus on earth mass movements > (landslides, rockfalls...) and floods. > >> From my experience with communities in Central Asia, local people know very > well where the main hazard zones are located ("There's a minor landslide on > this foothill almost every year" or "My father told me that once there has > been a massive flood that destroyed 10 houses" or "This road is blocked by > avalanches every spring"...). The information is usually not very precise > (when? where exactly? how strong?...) but it often gives a pretty good idea > of the hazard situation, from which it is possible to derive an estimate of > he frequency and of the magnitude of a potential hazard. > > So I would say that the "average person" is often able to delineate those > zones in his immediate living environment and that it is thus possible to > keep a bottom-up approach. Of course, it is usually necessary to engage > with local people in the field and it is rather hard to digitize anything > remotely. Moreover, such hazards often leave scars on the ground, which > make them "visible on the ground" (at least to some extent) > > Of course, this is a history-based approach: we only find about hazards > that have occured during the last 1 or 2 generations. This makes the > approach imperfect, but should still capture most of the seasonal hazards. > > @ Kate: "HOT's mission is to provide free geodata for use in response and > preparedness for disasters" > > Then we probably agree that HOT should develop some standards for hazard > zones, as it has been done for post-crisis classes, right? The remaining > question is only whether those should be stored within OSM or not. Do we > all more or less agree on this statement? > > Maybe the answer to this last question is given by Fran? "I'd be really > interested to see if Sahana would make a good place to > store this data". I have never worked with Sahana, so I would be happy if > someone with more experience could give his / her view? But if not, I'm > willing to investigate a little bit. > > In this case, should we investigate the possibility to remove all of HOT > from OSM and to store the humanitarian data somewhere else? If I stick to > the definition "OpenStreetMap is usually used to map things that are > visible on the ground", which is obviously not the case for Search And > Rescue sectors, for example (at least not in a permanent way). > > Once again, I'm really new to HOT and thus might not always be 100% to the > point, but I'm really excited about those discussions! > > Should we start a wiki page to draft those ideas? > > St?phane > -- > "Le mot progr?s 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 > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 20:53, Kate Chapman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 St?phane have valid points. >>> Just food for thought. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Kate Chapman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi St?phane, >>>> >>>> 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, St?phane 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! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> St?phane >>>>> -- >>>>> "Le mot progr?s 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 St?phane, >>>>>> >>>>>> 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, St?phane 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, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> St?phane >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> "Le mot progr?s 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/attachments/20120404/36fefe9c/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > > > End of HOT Digest, Vol 26, Issue 9 > ********************************** _______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
