Stefan delivers the Google Earth goods:
UNOSAT has just released a map dated January 9 that contains satellite imagery of Gaza City acquired by the WorldView-1 Satellite on January 6… I’ve added that map to the Gaza maps network link for Google Earth, which in the meantime also contains the updated OCHA Gaza situation map, dated January 8.
While Jon gets irate about the state of humanitarian mapping in 2009:
Impressive work all around but I need to gripe about what I see as an antiquated way of approaching humanitarian disasters at least as far as mapping is concerned… We can’t keep doing this. We need to evolve. There are too many people relying on us. It is time to work past licensing issues, or whatever the real issues are, and start making substantive changes.
And Mikel defends the indefensible prospect of better maps of Gaza:
There’s a again an presumption of insider knowledge here, that anyone who is operating in Gaza is going to know what’s up. I don’t believe that… There are better things for you to do for Gazans. Don’t do this. Most of us can’t do anything directly. Actually no one from anywhere can get into Gaza to help. Why discourage a contribution?
I’m with all of these guys, all of whom are doing sterling work in trying to push the boulder of humanitarian mapping up a particularly steep hill called “business as usual”. Nigel Woof at MapAction recently asked me for feedback on the main lines of progress in humanitarian GIS in the last year1 but I still feel like my 2006 essay on is largely still accurate – although I will agree that it fails to cover neogeography particularly well2
I still feel that our biggest problem is our lack of a clear objective in improving spatial data provision. I agree with Mikel that the OSM approach can really improve data quality in real time – but if nobody will use that data, then it calls into question the whole endeavour3 – but I would still encourage people to contribute to OSM on the basis that it is a long-term investment in a public good.
But still nobody answers my basic questions - who are these maps for, when are these maps for, what are these maps for? Maybe different projects answer different needs – but then we run into the interoperability question (I agree with Jon here – PDF files? In 2009?). Crowdsourcing alone isn’t the answer, but in this case it’s a better start than business as usual.
- And Nigel – apologies for not getting back to you sooner. [↩]
- Time for an update, possibly. [↩]
- See also Ushahidi for another application of this objection. [↩]
Related posts:
Thanks for the post, Paul.
You’re absolutely right, if nobody uses the near real-time data, then what’s the point? Similarly, what’s the point of early warning if there is no link to early response? Crisis maps need to be used not just as maps but as *communication* tools, hence my argument for Mobile Crisis Mapping (MCP).
First responders are arguably in most need of near real-time data. How can they be assured that they receive timely and relevant data? Here are a couple thoughts:
*Ushahidi and Conflict Early Response*
http://earlywarning.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/ushahidi-and-conflict-early-response
*Crowdsourcing Warning AND Response*
http://earlywarning.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/crowdsourcing-warning-and-response
I think that individuals and communities affected by crisis are the most in need of timely and relevant data. I liked the idea of the Emergency News Agency you posted about, but I like much more the idea of involving beneficiaries in the information cycle at all points.
First responders should also be required by law (both civil law and donor contracts) to release their data into the public domain where there is no security issue around it. There is no justification for withholding data, and plenty of potential for it to be used more effectively.
(Of course we might be talking about different first responders – might be useful to clarify.)
This whole OSM process was kicked off by a request for detail by a major humanitarian organization, gearing up for a potential operation in Gaza. No guarantees they will use our data, but there’s a very real possibility.
I wonder if one of the problems to effective use of maps is that the general culture of humanitarian organizations exists at a much lower altitude, focusing on people. There is more emphasis on social relationships than geographical ones.
Once you go too high up, you can become detached from the people you are trying to help, although I do believe that it this geographical overview is essential to strategic planning.
Perhaps there is a challenge (and an opportunity) to link the birds-eye view with a more human(itarian) view.
Just a thought…
Michael – participatory mapping is perhaps the missing link here?
I’m not sure if participatory mapping would be the complete answer – it’s still coming from a mapping perspective – although I don’t have any experience with it.
I think that it is the wrong approach to think: “Maps are great tools – aid workers need maps, so let’s make maps”, better to think: “What (information) do aid workers need? Can maps help them with that? How?”. I think that this might tie into the innovation fallacy – innovation being driven by tools, rather than problems.
I think that one of the main values of maps, is how it can be used as a canvas to display a wide variety of information.
One idea could be something along the lines of Google Street View – it would certainly be interesting to see a street view of Gaza at the moment. But short of being used as a publicity tool (such as http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/kroobay/webisodes.php) I’m not sure if it would solve any problems.
I also wonder if http://photosynth.net could, or already has had humanitarian applications
But here I go thinking about the tools that could be used…
Pingback: Assessing Gaza from an armchair in space | humanitarian.info