[Osmf-talk] Notes & Bing Imagery

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Thu Dec 5 09:34:54 UTC 2013

John, I don't think we are discounting yours or anybodies else's
experience, but it has to be put in the the right context.

As Alex has already pointed out, the devices we are talking about are
smaller than you average model airplane, actually substantial parts of
the tech -is- from model airplanes. And there is a lot of experience
with the technology, in no way is it new. OSM has had access to imagery
captured with drones since 2009 from http://www.r-pod.ch/ (produced with
swinglets). As you can see r-pod, just as other companies using such
technology, doesn't have any qualms about flying over inhabited areas,
in fact they are paid to do exactly that, very often by the
municipalities themselves. What is "new" is, mainly due to the
increasing number of FPV* enthusiasts, that the technology has become so
cheap that it is at the cost level of a moderately expensive hobby.

Naturally the technology has to be used responsibly, and the relevant
regulations particularly in air space with other traffic need to be
adhered to, but nobody was suggesting anything else.


* just so there is no confusion, while FPV is driving the cost of the
technology down, it is not what we are discussing here. swinglet, eBee
et al follow preplanned and programmed flight plans mainly by using GPS
and other sensors.

Am 05.12.2013 01:05, schrieb John Crowley:
> I have the opportunity to be around high-end UAVs costing well into
> the hundreds of thousands of USD. Autopilots fail. I have watched
> birds drop comms and fly until they ran out of juice. I have watched
> very expensive UAVs crash in the landing process--with a very skilled
> military-trained pilot dealing with a wind burst and having inadequate
> altitude to manage a recovery.
> Having sailed a bit in a city, I know a bit about blow downs and weird
> wind shifts when a long city street empties a strong breeze onto the
> water. My colleagues in urban search and rescue have far worse horror
> stories from flying UAVs around tall unstable buildings.
> All of these worries are in the professional community, where a
> healthy respect for the capabilities of unmanned systems is matched by
> a healthy respect for their shortcomings. I am not hearing the same
> balanced view in this community yet.
> Please discover it by learning from what has worked and failed, rather
> than repeating idealistic mistakes. This is a complicated systems
> problem, not just an engineering challenge.
> On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 5:55 PM, Oleksiy Muzalyev
> <oleksiy.muzalyev at bluewin.ch> wrote:
> I would agree with Martin, however, that if we ever go this way, the
> utmost attention should be paid to privacy concerns and security.
> Perhaps in a form of guidelines or self-regulations, which must be
> accepted before making and submitting any orthorectified aerial imagery
> for the OSM.
> - a drone weight should be limited up to 0.7 kg;
> - some sort of a training certificate for pilots (at least internal);
> - no photos should be ever made on altitude less than 100 - 200 meters,
> so that people are not recognizable at all;
> - no flying near airports;
> Anyway, the technology, like eBee, seems to be a bit too expensive yet
> for an individual. But we may continue to work on airmanship meanwhile,
> until it reaches the mass production.
> brgds
> O.M. (Alex-7)
> On 04.12.2013 23:34, Simon Poole wrote:
> > 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 sure.
> >
> > In any case I don't quite see the case for alarm on that specific front
> > given that at least on auto pilot the devices seem to be quite fail safe
> > and there is tons of other stuff that has similar risks that we ignore.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > Am 04.12.2013 16:27, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> >>
> >> 2013/12/4 Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch <mailto:simon at poole.ch>
> <mailto:simon at poole.ch <mailto:simon at poole.ch>>>
> >>
> >>    What is working for us, is that it is completely possible to build
> >>    a working system that weighs less than 1kg (the swinglet is <
> >>    0.5kg), and fly at ~100m, reducing potential damage and conflicts
> >>    to a minimum.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> well, a 1kg drone falling freely from 100m altitude would have 981J
> >> (speed 44.3m/s or ~160km/h) at impact (OK, simplified calculation
> >> without air resistance), if it were a human being hit this could
> >> already cause serious injury or maybe even death?
> >> Another reason for wearing an aluminium hat in the future ;-)
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Martin
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > osmf-talk mailing list
> > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> >
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20131205/488ec660/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list