Hi All, Rafael, I agree that remote tracers should only use a limited number of damage tags. I was proposing that moderate/destroyed effectively replace damaged/collapsed. I also like the incident specific tagging scheme you propose.
Pierre, it's a fair point that this will be disruptive in the short term to existing tracing that's been done. I think we'll have to look for automated means of moving over the tags from the data collected so far to new areas. Best, Robert Robert Banick | Field GIS Coordinator | International Services | Ì American Red Cross <http://www.redcross.org/> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006 Tel 202-303-5017 | Cell 202-805-3679 | Skype robert.banick On 11/25/13 5:15 AM, "Rafael Avila Coya" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, Jonas: > >For the disaster tagging, wouldn't it be simpler to have the following >schema? > >typhoon_Haiyan2013:damage, typhoon_Haiyan2013:reviewed, ... >earthquake_Haiti2010:damage, earthquake_Haiti2010:reviewed, ... >tsunami_Japan2011:damage, tsunami_Japan2011:reviewed, ... > >About the damage terminology, I find it impossible for remote >volunteers. So I would suggest that remote volunteers keep with the >no/damaged/collapsed schema, and then those on the ground to change it >to the more accurate schema. Or, for future disasters, using only >moderate and destroyed tags as equivalent to damaged and collapsed. > >Cheers, > >Rafael. > >On 25/11/13 09:46, Jonas Shorn wrote: >> Hi Robert, >> >> good deal! The tagging scheme is simple but intriguing. >> >> However, I would suggest to use 2 different disaster tags. Because, >> ideally, the tagging scheme could be set up now in a sustainable way so >> it can also be used later on. So why dont use one disaster tag like >> disaster:type=Typhoon/ Earthquake/Flood/.... and one for disaster name >> like disaster:name=Yolanda/Haiyan, ... >> >> Great to use a terminology for damage assessment used by responders in >> the field. I would suggest to provide guidelines for mapping-volunteers >> about those terminologies.. >> >> the assessment tag - would it also be meant to be used by volunteers who >> map from remote? Also, when the colleagues conduct the damage assessment >> in the field, it might be feasible that they also assess more things >> than the damage and tag it, following the Humanitarian Data Model? >> >> Keep up the great work! Kudos! >> >> Warm regards, >> >> SvendJ >> >> >> >> >> 2013/11/25 Banick, Robert <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> Hi All, >> >> I'm gearing up to do a considerable amount of fieldwork validating >>and >> adding to the damage assessments conducted for Typhoon Haiyan to >>date. >> I'll be working with a team of enumerators conducting standard >>shelter >> assessments to incorporate relevant data from those assessments into >> OSM. >> As such I've been taking a hard look at the OSM data model for >> damages and >> thinking about how best this can be done. >> >> My comments are those of Nick McWilliam from MapAction: if >>buildings and >> damages aren't separated then it's very difficult to tell the two >>apart. >> While semicolons *can* be used, its more work than necessary and >> needlessly complicated for the many new or occasional tracers we get >> during these events. >> >> I'm developing a schema that we can use to pair Shelter Cluster >> assessment >> data with OSM. The goal is a data model that matches with what >> responders >> are using and is easy to query, update and clean as recovery work >> progresses. >> >> There's been some great discussion here so far that I'm trying to >>pull >> together into something we can use. I wanted to propose the >> following four >> tags and get feedback. Note that this scheme is meant as much for >>field >> teams as for remote tracers. >> >> damage=minor/limited/moderate/extensive/destroyed >> disaster=typhoon;Yolanda >> validated=yes >> assessment=XYZ_Organization >> >> Thoughts on the scheme: >> >> I would propose that guidelines/example for remote tracers using >>these >> tags be established (e.g. X photo is an example of moderate damage) >>and >> only a limited number are used by them. >> >> The damages tag was modified to reflect the 5-level scale I've seen >> in use >> by shelter assessors in previous disasters in the Philippines. I >> welcome >> other input. >> >> I decided against having a typhoon-specific damages tag because >> realistically multiple sources of damage don't matter and are hard >>to >> disentangle besides. >> >> Validation should be used by field teams to mark that they've >> verified or >> modified remotely provided data. The assessment tag should mark >>which >> organizations did that validation. >> >> I think the disaster tag could be done better and would welcome >>thoughts >> there. I can theoretically see multiple disasters needing to be >>recored >> but can't think of a more elegant way to do so. >> >> Any and all thoughts are most appreciated. >> >> Best, >> Robert >> >> Robert Banick | Field GIS Coordinator | International Services | Ì >> American Red Cross <http://www.redcross.org/> >> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006 >> >> >> >> >> >> On 11/22/13 11:30 AM, "Nick McWilliam (MapAction)" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >Hi Andrew - >> >Much appreciate the quick response - will check the tag attribute; >>and >> >understand your comments about the design of the tagging scheme. >> >Best wishes - >> >Nick. >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Andrew Buck [mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] >> >Sent: 22 November 2013 16:15 >> >To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >Subject: Re: [HOT] PHL: making use of building damage data >> > >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >Hash: SHA1 >> > >> >Nick, see my responses inline below: >> > >> >> 1. Having referred to the OSM Damaged buildings crisis mapping >> >> >><http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Damaged_buildings_crisis_mapping> >> >> page, I'm not sure I'm making the best use of the data that's >>there, >> >> e.g. how to access typhoon:reviewed and typhoon:damage ? >> >> Would we be better not using shapefile downloads but another >>format >> >> that preserves more of the source data structure? >> > >> >Have a look at the last column in the shapefiles which should be >>called >> >'tags'. In that you will find all the other tags that are not part >> of the >> >other columns so you can query against that for >> >typhoon:reviewed=* and so forth. >> > >> >> 2. Perhaps it's just the way that the shapefile attributes are >> derived >> >> from the source OSM data, but how could we separate the building >>type >> >> (house, office etc) from the damage status? >> > >> >Using the current tagging shceme we really cant since a damaged >> church for >> >example would need building=damaged and building=church at the same >> time >> >which isn't allowed. This is a known problem with this scheme and >> it will >> >likely be fixed after the public is mostly done mapping, we will >> just go >> >through and change the tags accordingly to the new schema. >> > >> >> 3. Finally (and apologies for touching on what I expect is a >> >> long-running question), how are such data time-stamped? I'm >>thinking >> >> for example of buildings that were already tagged as damaged >> >> pre-typhoon, or that become repaired. >> > >> >We have the time stamps for when the objects were added to the DB >> and/or >> >tagged as damaged so in theory you can work out what disaster >> everything >> >relates to. In practice though we also plan to work out a better >> scheme >> >for >> >tagging this explicitely in the coming weeks/months after the >>disaster >> >response has settled down a bit. Right now we are just running >> with the >> >current scheme since a lot of people are already using it, we don't >> want >> >to >> >pull the rug out from under them during the response, even if we >> know our >> >current schema is sub-optimal and will be changed in the future. >> > >> >Hope this addresses your questions. >> > >> >- -AndrewBuck >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >HOT mailing list >> >[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> HOT mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> HOT mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >> > >-- >Twitter: http://twitter.com/ravilacoya > >-------------------------------- > >Por favor, non me envíe documentos con extensións .doc, .docx, .xls, >.xlsx, .ppt, .pptx, aínda podendoo facer, non os abro. > >Atendendo á lexislación vixente, empregue formatos estándares e abertos. > >http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Tipos_de_ficheros > >_______________________________________________ >HOT mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > _______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
