Hi
> We should be careful to make the appropriate analysis and not demotivate the
> OpenStreetMap community who made
> such a huge effort for this activation.
This report, I believe, is the first thorough investigation ever of OSM data
from a disaster activation. That gives us really concrete analysis to digest
and learn from. Certainly not everything in a response is within HOT's control,
but we need to accept that we can and must improve what we do, and take
feedback seriously. That is precisely how HOT has grown from an outrageous idea
back in 2005, to an indispensable component of disaster response in 2014.
Our mission is to be effective in disaster response, and that means
acknowledging our gaps, even when that might be hard. We made a huge effort,
and have gotten tremendous kudos for what we've accomplished for the Haiyan
response, and we can be secure in our pride in that. We are also comfortable,
strong and motivated to adapt ourselves to well researched critique and
analysis.
And i n any case, worth noting that this is the quite positive take away...
"The assessment found that modest investments in technology, business processes
and pre-disaster activities could make OSM a strong platform for damage
assessment data and analysis in future disasters."
> The Red Cross study makes the assumption that the objective of the
>OpenStreetMap crowdsourcing was to make detailed
> assesments.
...
> The Red Cross study points to the fact that in most cases the limitation in
>damage assesment was the
> imagery that seemed to show undamaged buildings when in reality they had
> sustained damage.
I'm not sure if this assumption is made or not, but I agree that the report is
not totally clear on the context and objective in which HOT was engaged in
damage assessment. A single sentence or two on that context in the executive
summary could help. As well, inclusion of the points on imagery in the
executive summary would be more representative of the conclusions.
Btw, the report is in GitHub :) Not sure if ARC wants to respond to pull
requests, but very possible to make fine tuned suggestions to there
https://github.com/AmericanRedCross/OSM-Assessment
Cheers
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:25 PM, Pierre Béland <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Robert,
>
>In the early days after Typhoon Haiyan, there were estimations of 10,000
dead, severe damages and no communications with various remote areas. The
humanitarian community as a whole needed even rough estimates of the extent
and the
distribution of the damages.
>
>The Coordination group where OCHA , US Red Cross and HOT participated right
>from the beginning of this intervention thought that OpenStreetMap should
>contribute to make Damage assesments. The objective was to make these
>assesments from Satellite imagery as soon as these would be available.
>
>The Red Cross study makes the assumption that the objective of the
>OpenStreetMap crowdsourcing was to make detailed assesments. But you can only
>make rough assesments from Satellite imagery especially when atmospheric
>conditions restrict the quality of the images provided. And a simple
>classification was used (ie. damaged or destroyed). UAV's (drones) or Aerial
>oblique imageries could have been used to make detailed assesments. But this
>was not part of the established workflow of the humanitarian community before
>Haiyan and such images were not available to make detailed assesments.
>
>Once such crisis are ended,
we should surely analyze our actions and plan collectively for better
interventions in the future. But we should avoid to have wrong conclusions
about actions taken during this crisis.
>
>The way the report is written, it gives the impression that imprecision in
>evaluation of assesment is due to the use of the OpenStreetMap community. The
>humanitarian community as a whole did not build before this event the capacity
>to react rapidly, deploy teams and provide detailed post-disaster imagery in
>other ways then through Satellite.
>
>In the context of this emergency and with the imagery provided, would
>professionnals
specialized in damage assesment have scored significantly better? Due to the
limits of such assesments in the operational context of this operation,
analysis should be based on the capacity to identify zones of high damages and
not focus on individual houses. To my point of view, the objective of that
operation following the severed damages after Typhoon Haiyan was to give an
early warning to identify zones and not individual houses. This would need
oblique imagery.
>
>Thinking about a better workflow in the context of such disasters, the
>capacity to have more flexibility and deploy rapidly teams when necessary to
>obtain either UAV imagery (drone) or aerial
oblique imagery would surely give a different response, this either with the
OpenStreetMap community or professionnals of damage assesment.
>
>We surely have a workflow to build and establish the role and
limits of assesments done with aerial imagery in the context of such emergency
operations.
>
>We should be careful to make the appropriate analysis and not demotivate
the OpenStreetMap community who made such a huge effort for this
activation.
>
>The Red Cross study points to the fact that in most cases the limitation in
>damage assesment was the imagery
that seemed to show undamaged buildings when in reality they had
sustained damage. But this is not reflected in the Executive summary and in
the Conclusion of the study. This study should be completed with a better
analysis of the type of imagery necessary to make better asssesment studies.
>
>
>
>Pierre
>
>
>
>________________________________
> De : "Banick, Robert" <[email protected]>
>À : "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>Cc : Clay impact <[email protected]>; "Kunce, Dale"
><[email protected]>
>Envoyé le : Mercredi 12 février 2014 9h22
>Objet : [HOT] Interim Report: Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) Damage Assessment
>
>
>
>
>Dear HOT Communuity,
>
>The American Red Cross and the REACH Initiative are pleased to present an
>interim assessment report on the validity of the building damages assessed
>through OpenStreetMap in the weeks following Typhoon Haiyan. You can find a
>print copy attached and a more interactive website version at the above link.
>
>
>The results were unfortunately negative and underline real limitations in
>OpenStreetMap’s ability to capture these results in the present. Neverthless,
>this report identifies strong promise in the OSM model of crowdsourcing and
>highlights the investments needed to make that potential possible. It’s our
>sincere hope that funders, NGO partners and most especially the OpenStreetMap
>community will rally around these investments so that OSM can play an even
>stronger and more operationally useful role in future disaster responses.
>
>
>We are indebted to the US Agency for International Development’s Office of
>Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) for funding this assessment and look
>forward to future partnerships to improve the utility of open data and
>OpenStreetMap in particular for disaster response.
>
>With all the best,
>Robert Banick, Dale Kunce and Clay Westrope
>American Red Cross & REACH Initiative
>
>
>Robert Banick | Field GIS Coordinator | International Services | Ì American
>Red Cross
>2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006\
>_______________________________________________
>HOT mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>HOT mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
