[HOT] open geology map

Christian Ledermann christian.ledermann at gmail.com
Sun Mar 15 15:09:09 UTC 2015


If you are looking for a collaborative approach to collect/maintain
the data have a look at http://geogig.org/
I think that could be better suited for "your kind of data" than the OSM format.

just my 2 cents.

On 14 March 2015 at 17:53, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
> So probably the best place for it would be a separate database that could be
> combined with OSM data.  There is no reason why it couldn't use OSM format
> and tools such as JOSM though.
>
> I worked in a library for a while and we had a theory that if you asked five
> classifiers how to classify a book you'd get six different answers.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 14 March 2015 at 13:38, Charlotte Wolter <techlady at techlady.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sander,
>>
>>         I agree with most of your points and would like to add that
>> surface geology is a highly specialized field requiring a great deal of
>> expertise. I'm a geology buff myself, and there is no way I would attempt to
>> map that. Also, there often is strong disagreement among geology
>> professionals about the nature and dating of rock units, disagreements that
>> make some of our set-tos about how to code sound trivial.
>>         Also, there generally is a lot of local information about
>> landslides and tsunami risk, courtesy of the USGS, though sometimes it is
>> ignored. In Los Angeles, tsunami-prone areas are signed along major roads,
>> as are the areas subject to debris flows. The recent deadly landslide in
>> Oregon was in an area known to experience landslides, but apparently the
>> risk was not widely publicized.
>>         Tsunami risk, perhaps, could work as an overlay, and I believe
>> that data is available from the USGS.
>>         But, generally, I think this whole area may be too technical for
>> widespread application in OSM, even though I would enjoy seeing it.
>>
>> Charlotte
>>
>>
>>
>> At 05:59 AM 3/13/2015, you wrote:
>>
>> I think this suggestion belongs more on the general OSM talk or tagging
>> list than on the HOT list, but anyway.
>>
>> There are already a number of ways to tag surface, like surface=*,
>> natural=*, landuse=*, landcover=*, ... Just read the wiki about those (f.e.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural )
>>
>> There's also a convention in OSM about sub-tagging. F.e. you could tag
>>
>> natural=rock + rock=sandstone
>>
>> Thus I guess most of what you want is already possible in OSM. You should
>> only try to add a few more specific conventions (f.e. about the types of
>> rock).
>>
>> I probably don't really get your 3D attempts, but the general concensus is
>> that it's hard to get in certain places, and thus you can't make a uniform
>> map of heights or angles. As such, OSM contains no height or slope data
>> (apart from the elevation of some peaks), but leaves this to professionals
>> (such as the NASA). It isn't so hard to extract a general slope from good
>> precision elevation data, so there's no point in including it directly in
>> OSM data (with the right preprocessor, it can get rendered on the map
>> anyway).
>>
>> So that doesn't belong in OSM, but it isn't the biggest problem IMO. The
>> biggest problem I see in your attempt is ignoring that OSM is a crowdsourced
>> effort. For crowdsourcing, you need a crowd, and that crowd is most easily
>> found in populated places. Your effort seems to focus on areas with a low
>> population (a city isn't very vulnerable for a landslide). But sadly,
>> there's no crowd around there, so the most we would be able to do is some
>> mapping from aerial pictures. This shouldn't hinder you from starting the
>> project, but you shouldn't have very high expectations from it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sander
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-03-12 22:03 GMT+01:00 Hazel <hlhj2 at srcf.net>:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Can we again discuss putting geological data into OSM? Specifically, I'd
>> like a recommended way to tag fault lines and surface geology polygons.
>>
>> This e-mail assumes the reader knows nothing of geology, apologies to
>> everyone else.
>>
>> First, the usecase: geological data saves lives in natural disasters, it
>> is useful for common activities like agriculture, and it is interesting in
>> its own right. It can also be usefully collected by amateurs.
>>
>> I am not suggesting that OSM should produce disaster risk maps, or
>> recommendations for farmers. I am saying OSM could collect the data that
>> would allow experts to quickly and easily make these things.
>>
>> Using OSM contours, they can work out areas of flood risk and tsunami
>> escape routes. Using contours and and basic geological information, they can
>> work out areas of landslide risk (landslides kill more people than volcanoes
>> or floods or earthquakes, but they kill a few dozen at a time). If we map
>> faults, they'll know more about where earthquakes are likely to happen (you
>> know the photos of roads after earthquakes, offset by a few centimeters? The
>> fault is the plane where the offset happens, and earthquakes use the same
>> faults over and over again). If you map areas of shallow bedrock vs.
>> unconsolidated sediment, you know which areas may suffer soil liquifaction
>> in an earthquake.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction soil liquifaction
>>
>> Technical infodump:
>>
>> To make a geological map, you map areas with similar surface rock or
>> sediment2. You describe them (anything from field IDs like "greenish rock
>> #2" to detailed technical descriptions) and give them proper names (e.g.
>> "the Tunbridge Wells Sand Formation").
>>
>> Having mapped the boundaries between different rock types, you can also
>> trace faults and the line of folds in the rocks. These all obviously exist
>> in 3-D, but are usually represented on 2-D maps. Just mapping the 2-D trace
>> is enough for many purposes.
>>
>> OPTIONAL EXTRA 3-D info:
>> If you want to add more information about the third dimension to a two-D
>> map, there are conventions for that. You specify a line (along the axis of
>> the fold, or on the steepest line down the fault plane or boundary plane).
>> You map the direction of this line. Then you measure the angle between the
>> line and the horizontal, and write in on the map (next to standard symbols:
>> for a plane, a T-shape, and for a fold axis, an X with two or three of the
>> lines turned into arrows pointing in the two or three downhill directions).
>>
>> Plane:
>> http://web.arc.losrios.edu/~borougt/StrikeAndDip.jpg
>>
>> Fold:
>> http://bc.outcrop.org/images/structural/press4e/figure-11-16b.jpg
>>
>> Planes on either side of a fold:
>> http://courses.missouristate.edu/EMantei/creative/GeoStruct/strkdip.jpg
>>
>> This is actually fairly easy to explain in 3-D, but not in 2-D, and I
>> don't know of a good video. We could make one.
>> END OPTIONAL EXTRA
>>
>>
>> Example:
>> Let's look at the Weald area of the UK, since it is well-mapped.
>>
>> Read:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weald#Geology
>>
>> Terms:
>> "Lower Cretaceous" and "Upper Jurassic" describe age (lower means older)
>> "rocks", "chalk" and "sandstone" describe rock type
>> "sands" and "clays" describe sediment type
>> "Purbeck Beds", "Ashdown Sand Formation" and so on are proper names of
>> groups of rocks/sediments. These names are hierachical, like taxons, and are
>> in databases (for the Chalk Group that forms the White Cliffs of Dover:
>> http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?pub=CK).
>>
>> The cross-section may help make the 2-d map make sense.
>>
>> To see how faults and folds (synclines/synforms, that sag, and
>> anticlines/antiforms, that hog) are mapped as lines, see this map:
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic_map_SE_England_%26_Channel_EN.svg
>> (just gives rock ages, not type).
>>
>> Faults are usually much more obvious on small-scale maps than they are on
>> this map.
>>
>> For sediments, there exist multiple soil classifications, with mappings
>> between them, and OSM could support them all, but the classes we have (sand,
>> gravel...) would be enough to start with.
>> Examples:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Soil_Classification
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USDA_soil_taxonomy
>> etc.
>>
>> QGIS is increasingly used for geological mapping, so it works increasingly
>> well with many other geological tools. QGIS is already well-integrated with
>> OSM. The barrier for geologists new to OSM to upload their maps is therefore
>> low. Classes of students could do it.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/QGIS
>>
>> End infodump, requests for clarification and corrections welcome.
>>
>> Could anyone suggest a set of minimal changes that would make it possible
>> to enter data like this? As I said, just having a recommended way to enter a
>> surface geology polygon, a geological contact line (between two polygons),
>> and a fault line (with optional dip direction and inclination) would be very
>> useful.
>>
>> Pseudo-3-D perfection would also allow keeners to input the contact
>> between two rock formations (line, with dip direction and inclination) and
>> input folds (line, with dip inclination), but this can also wait.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hazel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Charlotte Wolter
>> 927 18th Street Suite A
>> Santa Monica, California
>> 90403
>> +1-310-597-4040
>> techlady at techlady.com
>> Skype: thetechlady
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Best Regards,

Christian Ledermann

London - UK
Mobile : +44 7474997517

https://www.linkedin.com/in/christianledermann
https://github.com/cleder/


<*)))>{

If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left,
you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If
you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.

1) Don’t drive species to extinction

2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.

3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.

}<(((*>



More information about the HOT mailing list