Dear All,
" Of course, this will never reach the precision of costly
scientifically-led
risk analysis. But maybe better than nothing, mainly in data-poor
environments? And could always be enriched in the future.
"
Why not simply use the existing ontologies from these 'scientifically-led
research projects'? There are so many so many so many ontologies out there
already that it's really a waste of time for a dispersed group like this to
try and make their own. Plenty of these are already public, notably the EC
ones, and they're exhaustive and they're currently in use and they're
usually quite simple :-) How about the CAST ontology?
http://cast.sbg.ac.at/overview___.html
Warm Regards,
-Joseph.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM, wrote:
> Send HOT mailing list submissions to
>hot@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>hot-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>hot-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of HOT digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Science on the Street Level (St?phane Henriod)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:46:54 +0200
> From: St?phane Henriod
> To: Om G
> Cc: hot@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [HOT] Science on the Street Level
> Message-ID:
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi
>
> I like the idea of "letting the people map what they want".. Anyway, it is
> not really possible to "forbid" any type of object / tag but the question
> is rather "should we proactively encourage and organize specific processes
> and tags?"
>
> In the case of risk, this would mean developing some kinds of ontology, to
> avoid that everyone ends up mapping garbage and flood areas in a totally
> different manner. Ontologies for hazard areas, ontologies for vulnerability
> classes, ontologies for building types.
>
> So how far should we go? I am quite a partisan of developing ontologies for
> all those and to make sure that they are
>
> - simple enough for any "non-specialist" to be able to apprehend and use
> them
> - complex enough in order to be relevant for some kind of risk analysis
>
> but this is an ongoing discussion in HOT, with partisans on both sides!
>
> Of course, this will never reach the precision of costly scientifically-led
> risk analysis. But maybe better than nothing, mainly in data-poor
> environments? And could always be enriched in the future.
>
> The 2 main points for me are:
>
> - Local people often know where the risks are (at least for some types
> of risks) and a costly scientific analysis might bring only marginal
> added
> value when it comes to humanitarian action
> - We absolutely need to be prepared for the next disasters, and this
> requires an early identification of at-risk zones (to avoid IDP camps in
> a
> flood zone...) and at-risk populations (to be able to engage with big
> NGOs
> and donors to promote safety with structural and non-structural
> initiatives)
>
> Thanks Om and Fred for your contribution
>
> Steph
>
> --
> "Le mot progr?s n'aura aucun sens tant qu'il y aura des enfants malheureux"
> -- Albert Einstein
>
> "A journey does not need reasons. Before long, it proves to be reason
> enough in itself. One thinks that one is going to make a journey, yet soon
> it is the journey that makes or unmakes you." -- Nicolas Bouvier
>
> Photos de voyages, photos de montagne: http://www.henriod.info
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Om G wrote:
>
> > Fred, thank you so much for this
> >
> > > For me, we need to let the people represent their area as they want
> (and
> > > in Cite Soleil it is an area at risk, and they are mapping several
> > > object, garbage, most flooded area, school, ) and perhaps the
> > > scientific world forget something to mention on a Micro Level.
> >
> > OSM's strength is that users can add what matters to them. People doing
> > 'real' risk modeling have a great deal of resources in comparison with
> > those 'at risk' and might also be quite reluctant to make some of these
> > vulnerable locations public for fear of legal repercussions or giving
> away
> > information of possible strategic value to an 'enemy' of some sort.
> >
> > When individuals on the ground have capacity to share what they perceive
> > to be a risk we learn what they care about and quite often will also find
> > things that qualify as "real" risks.
> >
> > Another important point, being shown again and again, that participatory
> > mapping is not a one shot experience, but rather the beginning of an
> > ongoing conversation. The first step of including self perceived risks
> will
> > start communication flow in the right dir
