[HOT] PHL: making use of building damage data
Banick, Robert
Robert.Banick at redcross.org
Mon Nov 25 14:47:24 UTC 2013
Hi All,
Rafael, I agree that remote tracers should only use a limited number of
damage tags. I was proposing that moderate/destroyed effectively replace
damaged/collapsed. I also like the incident specific tagging scheme you
propose.
Pierre, it's a fair point that this will be disruptive in the short term
to existing tracing that's been done. I think we'll have to look for
automated means of moving over the tags from the data collected so far to
new areas.
Best,
Robert
Robert Banick | Field GIS Coordinator | International Services | Ì
American Red Cross <http://www.redcross.org/>
2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
Tel 202-303-5017 | Cell 202-805-3679 | Skype robert.banick
On 11/25/13 5:15 AM, "Rafael Avila Coya" <ravilacoya at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi, Jonas:
>
>For the disaster tagging, wouldn't it be simpler to have the following
>schema?
>
>typhoon_Haiyan2013:damage, typhoon_Haiyan2013:reviewed, ...
>earthquake_Haiti2010:damage, earthquake_Haiti2010:reviewed, ...
>tsunami_Japan2011:damage, tsunami_Japan2011:reviewed, ...
>
>About the damage terminology, I find it impossible for remote
>volunteers. So I would suggest that remote volunteers keep with the
>no/damaged/collapsed schema, and then those on the ground to change it
>to the more accurate schema. Or, for future disasters, using only
>moderate and destroyed tags as equivalent to damaged and collapsed.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Rafael.
>
>On 25/11/13 09:46, Jonas Shorn wrote:
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto:andrew.r.buck at gmail.com>]
>> >Sent: 22 November 2013 16:15
>> >To: hot at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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 <mailto:HOT at openstreetmap.org>
>> >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT at openstreetmap.org <mailto:HOT at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>
>
>--
>Twitter: http://twitter.com/ravilacoya
>
>--------------------------------
>
>Por favor, non me envíe documentos con extensións .doc, .docx, .xls,
>.xlsx, .ppt, .pptx, aínda podendoo facer, non os abro.
>
>Atendendo á lexislación vixente, empregue formatos estándares e abertos.
>
>http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Tipos_de_ficheros
>
>_______________________________________________
>HOT mailing list
>HOT at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
More information about the HOT
mailing list