[HOT] including natural disaster data in OSM
Om Goeckermann
om.imap at gmail.com
Wed Apr 4 21:16:55 BST 2012
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, hot-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> Send HOT mailing list submissions to
> hot at openstreetmap.org
>
> 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
> hot-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> hot-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> 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 <kate at maploser.com>
> To: Eric Lovell <eric.j.lovell at gmail.com>
> Cc: HOT at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [HOT] Including natural hazards in the HOSM data model?
> Message-ID:
> <CAGn7mOrswtx3VaZAqS38Sus6izvnYUU6w+E86oFeUWfiCtqMzA at 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 <eric.j.lovell at gmail.com>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 <kate at maploser.com> 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 <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!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 <kate at maploser.com> 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 <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,
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> HOT mailing list
>>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> HOT mailing list
>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>> 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 <s at henriod.info>
> To: HOT at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [HOT] Including natural hazards in the HOSM data model?
> Message-ID:
> <CAK6pVBXufhztNcEGwq=M7kG9=rsdMfsbZMF9ib=UesSesOb6XQ at 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 <kate at maploser.com> 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 <eric.j.lovell at gmail.com>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 <kate at maploser.com> 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 <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!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 <kate at maploser.com> 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 <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,
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> HOT mailing list
>>>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> HOT mailing list
>>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>>> 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
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
> End of HOT Digest, Vol 26, Issue 9
> **********************************
More information about the HOT
mailing list