[HOT] Including natural hazards in the HOSM data model?
kate at maploser.com
Wed Apr 4 19:18:58 BST 2012
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
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.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Stéphane Henriod <s at henriod.info> 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!
> "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 <kate at maploser.com> 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
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Stéphane Henriod <s at henriod.info> 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,
>> > actors might want to know in advance where to expect landslides,
>> > 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
>> > freely available from the GSHAP project, while the GlobalEarthquake
>> > will provide with a more modern version in a few years.
>> > My question to the active and experienced members of the community is
>> > the following: would you see any relevance to develop classes for
>> > (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
>> > triggered).
>> > Many challenges ahead but before diving into it, I would like to check
>> > you if this idea has already been discussed and if it makes sense to
>> > 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
>> > -- Albert Einstein
>> > "A journey does not need reasons. Before long, it proves to be reason
>> > in itself. One thinks that one is going to make a journey, yet soon it
>> > the journey that makes or unmakes you." -- Nicolas Bouvier
>> > Photos de voyages, photos de montagne: http://www.henriod.info
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > HOT mailing list
>> > HOT at openstreetmap.org
>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
> HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the HOT