[HOT] Notes & Bing Imagery
severin.menard at gmail.com
Wed Dec 11 00:40:44 UTC 2013
My comments inline.
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:43:23 -0800 (PST)
> From: Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com>
> To: "hot at openstreetmap.org" <hot at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [HOT] Fw: [Osmf-talk] Notes & Bing Imagery
> <1386272603.63965.YahooMailNeo at web161706.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Some notes from John Crowley on another list regarding policy
> and?practicalities?of UAV use for disaster mapping.
> * Mikel Maron *?+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
> On Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:35 AM, John Crowley <
> bostoncello at yahoo.com> wrote:
> As someone who works in crisis response, I grok the need for fresh
> imagery. It is one of my biggest pain points. Like many, I look forward to
> getting imagery quickly from platforms that can collect wide areas quickly.
> I also want them to carry communications gear that restore internet and
> voice comms. It's why we run an experimentation program every quarter.
> >That said, there are a couple assumptions here which I have to correct.
> >1. Autopilots and preprogrammed routes have large error bars. I have
> observed a comparable (more expensive) version of SenseFly wander 100s of
> meters off the planned route. In a forest survey, that is a problem
> (vertical obstructions do matter, but altitude provides some safety). In a
> city, where tall buildings and radio towers mix with general and
> commercial aviation, it is a major risk to veer that far off a planned
> route. We need to stop believing the marketing hype and start working with
> the platforms in places/sites where it is safe to fail. Cities are not on
> my list of such sites.
Regarding small UAVs potentially used in diaster contexts, I think cities
with skyscrapers are not really in the scope.
> >2. Small <> harmless. Just because a UAV has low mass does not mean it
> cannot cause harm. First, the weight class you describe <>3kg) is about the
> same as a bird. Take a peek at the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
> reports on the effects of bird strikes, most of which happen under 150m
> above ground level with animals from 100g to 3kg (see
> http://wildlife.faa.gov/downloads/StrikeReport1990-2012.pdf for a
> detailed summary of the negative effects). Second, fixed wing UAVs
> generally don't fall from the sky; they crash at velocities exceeding
> 30km/hr. An 1kg object moving at this velocity with a spinning prop can
> hurt someone up pretty badly if they are struck. I've seen it happen at
> airplane shows.
Hmm, yes, this could, occasionally, hurt someone. But if we push forward
this reasoning, it would urge to immediately stop using a lethal tool
massively deployed for disaster response: the truck. More than 1 ton,
sometimes moving at more than 50 km/hr and not even above where the people
live but directly on the ground! Should we ask WFP and other organizations
to only used human chains for deliveries, with less than 1 kg packages in
order not to potentially hurt any toe?
> >3. Sophisticated software <> fail safe UAV. Yes, robots can react faster
> than a pilot on the ground to changing conditions (the OODA loop is much
> shorter). But, the aircraft you describe have to compromise cost and
> capability. That ratio is changing, but from what I have seen, deviations
> from ideal conditions lead to unexpected results. It makes sense. Sensors
> and software at this price point are a matter of finding good compromises.
> These compromises do not cover every potential disruption--not just
> weather, but an obstacle that is either not yet mapped or which moves in
> front of the UAV. Given our use case (mapping after disasters), the map is
> by definition different from before the event and lots of helicopter
> traffic moves in sometimes ad hoc flight paths. It's not a great fit. I
> would believe less marketing documents and work more with the UAVs
> themselves. You'll see what I mean. There are lots of engineering
> compromises that marketing glosses over.
> >For the foreseeable future, I envision manned aircraft with UAV sensors
> mounted on the undercarriage will be the hybrid that allows for our work to
> move forward. We should experiment with UAVs, while building better
> relationships with general aviation pilots who can fly our sensors where
> the UAVs cannot (and should not) yet go.
I do not get the point very well. Aerial imagery exist for more than a
century, I already georeferenced some from 1920ś. It requires planes
specifically repared with quite big and expensive systems. Would the idea
be to take the UAVs sensors to put them on domestic planes? If so, a few
questions come to my mind: Are they supposed to fly at the same altitude
than the UAVs? In that case, this could be a real more dangerous for the
populations. If not, the resolution will be decrease quite fast, to
approximate the one provided by satellites. Mounting the sensors may not be
easy and would variate from a plane to another, how would that be handled?
What kind of planes btw? Cessna size, that would be available for free,
with voluntary pilots not going from a point to another but covering an
> >On Thursday, December 5, 2013 7:42 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> >2013/12/4 Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>
> >Well reality is somewhere between your scenario and being hit by a one
> kilo blanket dropped from 100m altitude. It would surely hurt, so much is
> >Yes, I agree ;-)
> >Anyway, German regulations currently seem to allow drones with a mass of
> up to 5kg to be flewn without approvation.
> >Yes, there are also other risks like being hit by a falling tree or by a
> falling roof tile. For example a (classical German) roof tile has a mass of
> ~4.3 kg and falling from 20 m would usually kill you if it hits you on the
> >osmf-talk mailing list
> >osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> >osmf-talk mailing list
> >osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
> End of HOT Digest, Vol 46, Issue 6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the HOT