[HOT] PHL: making use of building damage data

Mon Nov 25 10:47:22 UTC 2013

Hi Robert

As you said, The tagging scheme is simple but intriguing. If you remember, we decided to make compromises to move on rapidly to deliver printed maps 10 days after the disaster. At the same time we took care to add a tag  typhoon:damage=yes that would let us manage easily the data.

While we look at a better solution for the long term, we have to be careful to do it in a coordinated manner. It is important that the contributors continue to folllow the Workflow instructions in each Task Manager job.

We also need that a developper takes care of developping a script that would interrogate the OSM API history for each of these objects, and revise the data to correspond to the new tag scheme.

We also have to identify the tools that need revision for this new tag scheme and assure that these will be revised. We then have to discuss with the developpers and see how they can respond to that.  For one, the HOT humanitarian style will have to be adapted to the new tag schema.

And I insist again, we will have to implement this new solution in a coordinated manner, assuring that this has no impact on the mapping operations.

regard,

Pierre 

________________________________
 De : Jonas Shorn <shornjonas at googlemail.com>
À : "Banick, Robert" <Robert.Banick at redcross.org> 
Cc : "Mitchell org>" <mitchell.levine at acted.org>; "hot at openstreetmap.org" <hot at openstreetmap.org> 
Envoyé le : Lundi 25 novembre 2013 8h46
Objet : Re: [HOT] PHL: making use of building damage data

Hi Robert,

good deal! The tagging scheme is simple but intriguing. 

However, I would suggest to use 2 different disaster tags. Because, ideally, the tagging scheme could be set up now in a sustainable way so it can also be used later on. So why dont use one disaster tag like disaster:type=Typhoon/ Earthquake/Flood/.... and one for disaster name like disaster:name=Yolanda/Haiyan, ...

Great to use a terminology for damage assessment used by responders in the field. I would suggest to provide guidelines for mapping-volunteers about those terminologies..

the assessment tag - would it also be meant to be used by volunteers who map from remote? Also, when the colleagues conduct the damage assessment in the field, it might be feasible that they also assess more things than the damage and tag it, following the Humanitarian Data Model?

Keep up the great work! Kudos!

Warm regards,

SvendJ

2013/11/25 Banick, Robert <Robert.Banick at redcross.org>

Hi All,
>
>I'm gearing up to do a considerable amount of fieldwork validating and
>adding to the damage assessments conducted for Typhoon Haiyan to date.
>I'll be working with a team of enumerators conducting standard shelter
>assessments to incorporate relevant data from those assessments into OSM.
>As such I've been taking a hard look at the OSM data model for damages and
>thinking about how best this can be done.
>
>My comments are those of Nick McWilliam from MapAction: if buildings and
>damages aren't separated then it's very difficult to tell the two apart.
>While semicolons *can* be used, its more work than necessary and
>needlessly complicated for the many new or occasional tracers we get
>during these events.
>
>I'm developing a schema that we can use to pair Shelter Cluster assessment
>data with OSM. The goal is a data model that  matches with what responders
>are using and is easy to query, update and clean as recovery work
>progresses.
>
>There's been some great discussion here so far that I'm trying to pull
>together into something we can use. I wanted to propose the following four
>tags and get feedback. Note that this scheme is meant as much for field
>teams as for remote tracers.
>
>damage=minor/limited/moderate/extensive/destroyed
>disaster=typhoon;Yolanda
>validated=yes
>assessment=XYZ_Organization
>
>Thoughts on the scheme:
>
>I would propose that guidelines/example for remote tracers using these
>tags be established (e.g. X photo is an example of moderate damage) and
>only a limited number are used by them.
>
>The damages tag was modified to reflect the 5-level scale I've seen in use
>by shelter assessors  in previous disasters in the Philippines. I welcome
>other input.
>
>I decided against having a typhoon-specific damages tag because
>realistically multiple sources of damage don't matter and are hard to
>disentangle besides.
>
>Validation should be used by field teams to mark that they've verified or
>modified remotely provided data. The assessment tag should mark which
>organizations did that validation.
>
>I think the disaster tag could be done better and would welcome thoughts
>there. I can theoretically see multiple disasters needing to be recored
>but can't think of a more elegant way to do so.
>
>Any and all thoughts are most appreciated.
>
>Best,
>Robert
>
>Robert Banick | Field GIS Coordinator | International Services | Ì
>American Red Cross <http://www.redcross.org/>
>2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
>
>
>
>
>On 11/22/13 11:30 AM, "Nick McWilliam (MapAction)"
><nmcwilliam at mapaction.org> wrote:
>
>>Hi Andrew -
>>Much appreciate the quick response - will check the tag attribute; and
>>understand your comments about the design of the tagging scheme.
>>Best wishes -
>>Nick.
>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andrew Buck [mailto:andrew.r.buck at gmail.com]
>>Sent: 22 November 2013 16:15
>>To: hot at openstreetmap.org
>
>>Subject: Re: [HOT] PHL: making use of building damage data
>>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Nick, see my responses inline below:
>>
>>> 1. Having referred to the OSM Damaged buildings crisis mapping
>>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Damaged_buildings_crisis_mapping>
>>> page, I'm not sure I'm making the best use of the data that's there,
>>> e.g. how to access typhoon:reviewed and typhoon:damage ?
>>> Would we be better not using shapefile downloads but another format
>>> that preserves more of the source data structure?
>>
>>Have a look at the last column in the shapefiles which should be called
>>'tags'.  In that you will find all the other tags that are not part of the
>>other columns so you can query against that for
>>typhoon:reviewed=* and so forth.
>>
>>> 2. Perhaps it's just the way that the shapefile attributes are derived
>>> from the source OSM data, but how could we separate the building type
>>> (house, office etc) from the damage status?
>>
>>Using the current tagging shceme we really cant since a damaged church for
>>example would need building=damaged and building=church at the same time
>>which isn't allowed.  This is a known problem with this scheme and it will
>>likely be fixed after the public is mostly done mapping, we will just go
>>through and change the tags accordingly to the new schema.
>>
>>> 3. Finally (and apologies for touching on what I expect is a
>>> long-running question), how are such data time-stamped? I'm thinking
>>> for example of buildings that were already tagged as damaged
>>> pre-typhoon, or that become repaired.
>>
>>We have the time stamps for when the objects were added to the DB and/or
>>tagged as damaged so in theory you can work out what disaster everything
>>relates to.  In practice though we also plan to work out a better scheme
>>for
>>tagging this explicitely in the coming weeks/months after the disaster
>>response has settled down a bit.  Right now we are just running with the
>>current scheme since a lot of people are already using it, we don't want
>>to
>>pull the rug out from under them during the response, even if we know our
>>current schema is sub-optimal and will be changed in the future.
>>
>>Hope this addresses your questions.
>>
>>- -AndrewBuck
>>
>>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>HOT mailing list
>>HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>HOT mailing list
>HOT at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>

_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
HOT at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/attachments/20131125/385ca527/attachment-0001.html>