[Osmf-talk] Notes & Bing Imagery

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Thu Dec 5 17:51:35 UTC 2013


I beleive that we are talking about -very- different use cases. The use
case that most of us are thinking about is collecting updated imagery in
already covered areas, this is clearly separate from emergency and terra
ingcognita situations where the trade-offs will likely be different.

1) no high rise buildings (that can cannot be cleared with a large
margin with out going out of sight). To use Geneva as an example, the
highest building currently is 80m tall (most are below 50). OSM is 
mainly interested in imagery for mapping, that by definition implies
flying above, not between stuff. No other man made airborne vehicles
sharing the air space.

2) good conditions. The cheaper the equipment is, the less pressure
there is to fly in unfavourable conditions.

3) visual control/supervision (with other words model airplane regs),
with manual abort and/or control if something unexpected happens.

Essentially this will likely limit you to do covering less than a square
km at a time probably more like a quarter of that, so obviously such a
regime would not lend itself to replacing conventional imagery generation.

Simon


Am 05.12.2013 16:20, schrieb John Crowley:
> 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.
>
> 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 model airplane shows.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 5, 2013 7:42 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2013/12/4 Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch <mailto: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 sure.
>
>
>
> 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 head.
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131205/14136fdd/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list