Dear Peter,
This is a reoccurring question, there was a thread about it less than
one month ago in this list:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/2016-June/011992.html
Several resources are listed in that thread (inc. the case study by
Médecins Sans Frontières' GIS Unit on Ebola which is probably one of the
most consistent one:
http://cartong.org/news/update-msf-case-study-gis-ebola-response),
although more could certainly be added (and to my knowledge no
academic-level synthesis exists).
Several NGOs are trying to improve the feedback towards the HOT
community, in particular the members of the Missing Maps project,
however this requires time which is why it is not always done perfectly.
Thanks & best regards.
Martin
On 03/07/2016 14:00, hot-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 09:12:35 +0200
From: Peter Gervai<grin...@gmail.com>
To:hot@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [HOT] Reports about actual use of the results of HOT efforts
Message-ID:
<CAAWNVq-hrEqBch9+2pG83v0Oaj=emr9sqvqmctwuus+fs53...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hello HOT!
I decided to bring this over from
https://github.com/hotosm/hotosm-website/issues/65
and
https://github.com/hotosm/hotosm-website/issues/84#issuecomment-217356627
(both closed, btw) since I have realised this may be of a wider interest.
The original request was about the problem that while there are plenty of
showcases about the_results_ of the various HOT maps there are
almost none - or if there is they are very hard to find - about how these
mapping results were_used_ on the field out there.
Actual reports from the people who received the output of HOT:
- who are they exactly, where are they from, how are they organised,
how did they contact HOT?
- how did they use the data or the maps, what methods, equipment?
- what did they exactly used it for, what did they do with it?
- what parts of the map/data was the most helpful for them, how and why?
- what was not usable for them, what parts were not needed by them?
- what would they liked to have which was missing?
- if it's possible to say how much did the HOT results helped their
efforts? was it a little help? was it the most important help in their
work?
- what did they dislike in the results? were there dangerously
unreliable, misrepresented, otherwise problematic areas? were the
"white western people" able to map what's out there or were they
misunderstood what they saw on the imagery? I would like to know the
problems, too.
Maybe there are such reports, then I would be very glad if you people
would point me to them. (I would then forward it to the webite team to
include it on the main website, too.)
If there are not much of those, which I suspect, I would propose a simple thing:
HOT (community) give map and data to organisations, organisations give
reports of actual usage to HOT (community).
This should be the only thing we would kindly, but firmly ask for it in return.
As I wrote in the linked ticket above: "there is a big difference
between asking me to help creating a map somewhere just because the
area isn't covered (like when I was mapping rivers in Siberia, vast
lands with not a single node around, but nobody really care or use it,
it's just for fun) or because there are actual people requiring this
actual result to do actual work."
Apart from that, I would like to know whether my efforts are really
useful (apart from the "good to have" maps), there are actual people
who ask this very question from me and expecting answers, and I only
have general answers with lots of "really useful" and "it's helping
the people there", but hardly any hard facts or actual description of
what really was the effect of the HOT efforts.
Thank you,
Peter Gervai
OSM Hungary
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
