Hi all,
I think the underlying methodology in the project proposed is really good and I expect HOT and other humanitarian organizations will be working on helping evaluate it and working into their workflow eventually.
But it needs to be looked at to understand how in the context of how HOT works and our resources at the moment it can be incorporated into our workflow and the products we put out.
But it has a number of issues that we need to be able to examine and figure out how well we can adhere to the methodology and what we would need to support and do it well.
In addition, there are some OSM related things like damage tagging in general that need to be worked out with the wider OSM community to make sure we working in the larger OSM community as well as we possibly can.
That is why I got kind of excited about it, but referred it to the Activation Working Group to really review and figure out the best way for us to do projects like that in times of crisis.
But, that takes a bit of time that is needed. Jumping into something like this without fully examining what we can do and what our limitations are and what we would need to produce high quality data, is counter productive and just runs the risk of us putting out poor data and making the protocol itself look less effective or our ability to implement it look less effective.
You need to work on something like this carefully as it produces data that will be evaluated so we should put our best foot forward when attempting it. Typically this is done by small tests among those advocating for it and then asking professionals outside of hot to do evaluation of how well we did, identify places to improve, or provide us with definitive numbers about the level of confidence we have in the data.
That is exactly what we did in Vanuatu in partnership with the one of the reviewers on the methodology linked to in the archived project. A small number of us followed a protocol proposed by Dr. Meier and then turned the results over to his organization that asked us to participate for their evaluation and informing their future work (which I think it did). Which is exactly what I proposed with this new methodology.
And that is still what I would like to do with this new methodology as well. But just throwing it out there without any collaboration with the Activation Working Group is not the best way to move it forward.
Cheers, Blake On 3/2/2016 1:34 PM, Dale Kunce wrote:
I wasn't part of the discussions to make this a tasks but agree it should not be a task. During activations we have as much responsibility for the things we choose *not* to map as those that are mapped. Previous work in the aftermath of typhoon Haiyan showed that damage assessment from nadir satellite imagery is very difficult for remote mappers and yeilds bad data for the most part. In Haiyan there was only a 30% success rate. HOT is much better and successful at mapping other things that are more valuable for the relief effort than building damage assessment. http://americanredcross.github.io/OSM-Assessment/ Another thing complicating this task and activation is that no group, NGO, or government is asking for this data. Field teams in Fiji are not asking for OSM data at this time. There is a long understanding that HOT does not and should not map unless there is a requesting group. The tasking manager as a software development project is open for anyone to use and contribute. However, the HOT Tasking Manager is a tool for HOT thus we have roles and privileges on the server. In this instance a decision was made by senior activatiors that we should not at this time pursue this tasks. On Mar 2, 2016 6:47 AM, "Rod Bera" <r...@goarem.org <mailto:r...@goarem.org>> wrote: Hi Mikel, (not discussing here the pertinence of task #1575). I already gave my views on the OSMF list prior to your election to the board but this episode is an illustration of what we should not see in OSM. I wish to emphasise that OSM has nothing to do with HOT's Activation Working Group and not OSM tool should be controlled by it. therefore what you call OSMTM (OPENSTREETMAP Tasking manager) is not OPEN. Therefore NOT OPENSTREETMAP. Please stop claiming so. ... unless the Tasking Manager (re)becomes truly open. the TM was thought as a common for OSM, and having it the thing of a smaller group (which decides who can propose a task and postpone/archive/veto tasks) is a real problem. Otherwise, facing censorship on the TM there are chances that some dedicated mappers favour the emergence of an alternative TM (or worse, alternative TMs), which would raise other issues (possible concurrent tasks on the same regions, etc) unless we develop indexing mechanisms (like cross-harvesting INSPIRE catalogues). This issue should be discussed within OSMF to find the best way to transfer the governance of a self claimed OSM tool (which right now it is not) back to the OSM community. Thanks Rod On 02/03/16 02:07, Mikel Maron wrote: > Hello > > This project hasn't been raised or discussed within the AWG, and raises > a number of issues that require careful consideration. For the time > being in Fiji, we're focusing on updating the base map only, and this > particular OSMTM project has been archived. > > Thanks > -Mikel > > * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 <tel:%2B14152835207> @mikel s:mikelmaron > > > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 6:28 PM, Jean-Guilhem Cailton > <jguil...@gmail.com <mailto:jguil...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > Stronger cyclones are likely to become more frequent with climate > change. Categorie 5 cyclone Winston severely hit Fiji on Feb 20th. A > state of natural disaster was declared for 30 days. Ten days later, the > death toll is 43, at least, and more than 50,000 persons who have lost > their homes are still living in evacuation centers. > > Improving recovery capabilities is part of Disaster Risk Reduction > (DRR). Assessing the damage and obtaining accurate and actionable > information as quickly as possible is critical. Ziad Al Achkar, Isaac L. > Baker and Nathaniel A. Raymond, of the Signal Program on Human Security > and Technology at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI) published > these last days a study that describes a new methodology to standardize > remote assessments of wind disaster damage, from satellite, aerial or > drone imagery, named the “BAR methodology”, with a foreword by Ray > Shirkodai, Executive Director of the Pacific Disaster Center, “Assessing > Wind Disaster Damage To Structures” > <http://hhi.harvard.edu/publications/satellite-imagery-interpretation-guide-assessing-wind-disaster-damage-structures> > > This methodology takes into account structure categories visible in the > imagery, sorted in “A) Light strength structures (the most vulnerable); > B) Medium strength structures (moderately vulnerable); and C) Heavy > strength structures (usually the least vulnerable).” > > Each structure is also assigned a damage scale, which is as follows: “0 > = no visible damage to the structure; 1 = visible partial roof damage; 2 > = the roof has suffered significant damage or is completely off, but the > walls remain standing; and 3 = the walls and the roofs are down and the > structure integrity is completely compromised.” > > The goal of this project is to adapt the BAR methodology to the > OpenStreetMap framework, using also information available online from > social media, such as geo-localizable photos, and apply it to the town > of Ba, in Western Fiji, to produce detailed open geodata that will > hopefully be useful to the Fijian Government to manage the aftermath of > this disaster, and also to experiment and refine this methodology as > needed for future disasters. > > If you are already an experienced OSM mapper, and interested in learning > how to contribute to this, please have a look at this project: > http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/1575 > > Read the instructions carefully, and especially the BAR study linked > above. > > The adaptation of this method builds on previous attempts in the HOT > community, in particular regarding the tags used. As it is new, please > know that you are really welcome to ask any question you may have, on > all the channels available, especially in case of uncertainties you may > face, if you feel that you are qualified for this project and want to > give it a try. > > The same method could also be used for other areas, including where > aerial photos are available, and more generally where geo-localizable > photos from social media are available. > > Thank you very much. > > Best wishes, > > Jean-Guilhem > > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > HOT@openstreetmap.org <mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org> <mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org <mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > > > > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > HOT@openstreetmap.org <mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > -- Rod Béra, MCF Géomatique / Lecturer, Geomatics et SIG pour l'Environnement / and Environmental GIS Agrocampus-Ouest|65 r.Saint-Brieuc|CS84215|35042 Rennes cedex|France +33 (0) 223 48 5553 <tel:%2B33%20%280%29%20223%2048%205553> - roderic.b...@agrocampus-ouest.fr <mailto:roderic.b...@agrocampus-ouest.fr> _______________________________________________ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
