Hi Robert,
We can look at various ways to improve the quality of damage evaluation from
Imagery. More precise instructions, tutorials and adapted tools could
contribute to this. And it would be interesting to look at what already exist.
A JOSM plugin could give the possibility to play with the contrast and other
characteristics of an image, to compare two images side by side.
We have to admit that there are limits to damage evaluation with Satellite
Imagery, establish these limits and see what else could be done to improve
damage evaluation. Journalists and some humanitarian NGO's experienced UAV
civil drones for the Haiyan Typhoon. Aerial and UAV's will probably play a
greater role in the next activations, providing more flexibility for mapping in
crisis contexts such as Haiyan.
To progress with the methodology, I think that we should also look at what the
others are doing. I think that it would be the responsability of OCHA to carry
a study that analyze this problem more globally, looking also at the various
coordination aspects of such an intervention (ie. imagery, methodology,
systematic coverage of the zone, distribution of work among the various
groups). This would surely help the humanitarian community to progress. While
various studies concentrated over Tacloban, their were zones west of Tacloban
with no imagery available, either pre or post-disaster.
For those interested to look further, below are various links to Haiyan
Assessment maps from various organisations.
This UNOSAT live map shows the various assessments reports made for Haiyan.
https://unosatgis.cern.ch/webmap/UNOSAT_LIVE/Operative/?config=config_TC_20131108_PHL.xml
We see that USGS reports with defining very large zones only while Copernicus
reports by house blocks. Detailed Copernicus maps show that similarly to OSM
they traced individual buildings first, using Pleiade Imagery. But the
diagnostic are made for larger zones The Pleiade Imagery theys used is similar
in quality to the DigitalGlobe/HIU one used by OSM. And when we compare the
assessments with OSM, we see that the Copernicus group was face with the same
problems as OSM identifying damaged buildings.
http://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/list-of-components/EMSR058/ALL/EMSR058_02TACLOBANCITY
I started to prepare an online map for comparison of the Pleidade and
DigitalGlobe Post-Disaster Imageries with the Corephil Uav Civil Drone imagery
in Tacloban. Slide the map from the Corephil Imagery on the left, and the three
windows will update simultaneously. It is a lot easier to evaluate from the
Drone imagery then from the Satellite ones where imagery is often gray and
inprecise.
http://pierzen.dev.openstreetmap.org/hot/leaflet/Tacloban-post-disaster-imagery-compare.html
The Disaster Charter publishes also various assessment maps with the
possibility to download the shp
files.http://www.disasterscharter.org/web/charter/activation_details?p_r_p_1415474252_assetId=ACT-466
Pierre
________________________________
De : "Banick, Robert" <robert.ban...@redcross.org>
À : Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com>
Cc : Clay impact <clay.westr...@impact-initiatives.org>;
"hot@openstreetmap.org" <hot@openstreetmap.org>
Envoyé le : Mardi 18 février 2014 10h42
Objet : Re: [HOT] Interim Report: Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) Damage Assessment
Hi Dan,
Thanks for this! We were disappointed to find the same thing -- the
correlation is just not there. I think we need to focus heavily on the
improvements in our recommendation section so we can nudge these numbers
towards something more reasonable, because at present it's just not good.
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 2/16/14 4:47 PM, "Dan S" <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Robert,
>
>Thanks for pointing me to the raw data. I've run a crosstabulation
>(matching up objects by their osm ID) and it seems to look like this:
>
> no damaged destroyed
>no 85 82 63
>partial 170 119 111
>major 173 160 196
>total 88 31 70
>
>This is rather disappointing - there is some correlation between the
>two types of annotation but a lot of noise. For example the osm 'no'
>category seems to be more likely to be _any_ of the other categories
>in your observations rather than 'no'!
>
>I quantified the predictability of one from the other (using mutual
>information) and it confirms this, comes out rather low. My analysis
>code is at https://gist.github.com/danstowell/9040956 - just a quick
>evening script, check it before relying on it...
>
>Best
>Dan
>
>
>2014-02-14 14:53 GMT+00:00 Banick, Robert <robert.ban...@redcross.org>:
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> There's a "download raw data" button on the side of the website at
>> americanredcross.github.io/OSM-Assessment. Feel free to download and
>>play
>> with the data further -- and do contribute back anything new you find.
>> We're running more intensive stats analysis on the data now and will be
>> working that into the final report.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> 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 2/14/14 4:18 AM, "Dan S" <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Robert,
>>>
>>>Thanks for this. It's great to have some concrete analysis of what we
>>>did, and the extent to which it's accurate.
>>>
>>>Is there a full cross-tabulation available of the numbers for
>>>building-osm-status vs building-true-status? In the report there's a
>>>table of over/underrepresentation, and some other stats, but it
>>>doesn't give me a complete summary of whether our errors were in the
>>>form of "bias" (e.g. consistently labelling things worse or better
>>>than they are) or "variance" (e.g. the labelling tends to be a bit
>>>random). I'd be really grateful if you could provide the full
>>>cross-table.
>>>
>>>Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>2014-02-12 14:22 GMT+00:00 Banick, Robert <robert.ban...@redcross.org>:
>>>> Dear HOT Communuity,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The American Red Cross and the REACH Initiative are pleased to present
>>>>an
>>>> interim assessment report on the validity of the building damages
>>>>assessed
>>>> through OpenStreetMap in the weeks following Typhoon Haiyan. You can
>>>>find a
>>>> print copy attached and a more interactive website version at the
>>>>above
>>>> link.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The results were unfortunately negative and underline real limitations
>>>>in
>>>> OpenStreetMap's ability to capture these results in the present.
>>>> Neverthless, this report identifies strong promise in the OSM model of
>>>> crowdsourcing and highlights the investments needed to make that
>>>>potential
>>>> possible. It's our sincere hope that funders, NGO partners and most
>>>> especially the OpenStreetMap community will rally around these
>>>>investments
>>>> so that OSM can play an even stronger and more operationally useful
>>>>role in
>>>> future disaster responses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are indebted to the US Agency for International Development's
>>>>Office
>>>>of
>>>> Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) for funding this assessment and
>>>>look
>>>> forward to future partnerships to improve the utility of open data and
>>>> OpenStreetMap in particular for disaster response.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With all the best,
>>>>
>>>> Robert Banick, Dale Kunce and Clay Westrope
>>>>
>>>> American Red Cross & REACH Initiative
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robert Banick | Field GIS Coordinator | International Services | Ì
>>>>American
>>>> Red Cross
>>>>
>>>> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006\
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> HOT mailing list
>>>> HOT@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>>
>>
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
