• Home
  • About

GIScience News Blog

News of Heidelberg University’s GIScience Research Group.

Feed on
Posts
Comments
« Insights into OpenStreetMap healthcare attributes in India over time
Open Position @ HeiGIT: Software Engineer OSM Routing Services - Backend & Algorithms »

Humanitarian OSM Stats: How to monitor humanitarian mapping in the HOT Tasking Manager? - Part 5: the American Red Cross

Mar 17th, 2021 by Benjamin Herfort

Since 2010 organized humanitarian mapping has evolved as a constant and growing element of the global OpenStreetMap (OSM) community. With more than 8,000 projects in 150 countries humanitarian mapping has become a global community effort. Due to this large amount of projects, it can be difficult to get an overview on mapping activity. This is why we worked on the “Humanitarian OSM Stats” website to make it easier to find the information you are looking for. It combines data from the open-source Tasking Manager (TM4) hosted by the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) and information from OpenStreetMap (OSM) that has been processed using the ohsome OSM History Data Analytics Platform developed by HeiGIT.

As one of the founding members of the Missing Maps program, the American Red Cross (AmCross) has used OSM to support their work for the last seven years.  Primarily focused on preparedness programs that relate to climate change and natural hazards, the team has also supported MRI vaccine campaigns and many other projects.  Over the years, their Missing Maps engagement has grown and they are now hosting almost daily mapathons and engage with 10,000+ mappers annually.

In this post we will focus on validation activity in the HOT Tasking Manager. Validation is an essential part in humanitarian mapping projects for which many beginners do their first map edits in OSM. In the Tasking Manager experience users can mark tasks as validated after a task has been mapped. During this step the so called “validator” either directly fix mistakes (e.g. add missing buildings or correct tagging for highways in OSM) or request that this task should be mapped again by invalidating a task. Once a task has been validated, all data requested by this project should have been completely added to OSM in a correct way. Validation has been in the center of some controversial discussions about humanitarian mapping in the past. Hence, it has gained importance for many humanitarian organizations and some of them are setting up dedicated validator teams or validation events.

The American Red Cross is one of these organizations which has imposed itself to do better when it comes to validation. Over the years, they have hosted a dedicated team of validators in addition to hosting validation focused mapathons. For this piece we will focus on their most recent recruitment efforts. Starting in Fall 2020, the American Red Cross recruited, interviewed, and onboarded 30 new volunteer validators. This group is very diverse in regards to OSM experience, demographics, locations, and skill sets.  What unified this group is their shared interest in data, geography, and humanitarian principles.

Officially getting started in January 2021, the group was on-boarded using a three step process. First, volunteers learned about the OSM community, the Missing Maps project, and got familiar with TM4 and its primary editing tool, iDEditor.  This was to make sure they understood the new mappers experience. Next, the volunteers transitioned to mapping in JOSM.  Last, they became comfortable validating and sharing advice with their fellow mappers. Each class was offered multiple times to accommodate professional and school schedules and time zones. Each class had homework assignments that were discussed at the following class. Two weeks were blocked for each learning module. At the conclusion of their formal learning schedule, weekly Buddy Sessions were held so the group could continue to learn and practice together. Volunteers acted as that week’s Buddy and helped their fellow validator tackle any problems or new learning objectives.

During their time volunteering, monthly check in meetings and guest speakers are also organized for the larger group of volunteer validators. Once confident with the validation activity, monthly goals are set and tracked. We would also like to mention that this group joined forces with a similar program run by the Canadian Red Cross. This partnership was very successful and allowed the mappers to see multiple training styles and mapping behaviors. Next, we will use the humstats website and statistics to check how much progress has been reached already.

Goals

In this blog post we will pursue three relatively easy goals that focus on validation:

  1. Find out how many people are mapping and validating in the HOT Tasking Manager.
  2. Check if mapping and validation activities are balanced or skewed.
  3. Find out who is doing most of the validation work.

How to get the information from the website

  1. Visit the humstats.heigit.org website and select your organization and click on “go”. This will direct you to a new site with the statistics for the selected organization.
  2. We then take a look a the Tasking Manager section and navigate to the contributors graph. This plot shows how the activity of the mapping community fluctuates over time. We see that in months with more mappers we usually also see a higher number of validators. In October 2020 a long-term maximum of 180 validators per month have been counted. However, in December 2020 and January 2021 only about 30 volunteers helped to validate tasks in the Tasking Manager. This could be a reflection of a new group getting started and the team focusing on their class 1 learning objectives.
  3. In the next step we investigate validation performance by comparing the number of tasks that have been mapped against the number of tasks that have been validated. The “Equilibrium” plot shows a dark blue bar for validated and lighter green bar for mapped tasks. We see that in most months more tasks get mapped than validated. But there are also exceptions. Between November 2017 and September 2018 AmCross did really well when it comes to validation. This time period coincides with the creation of their Validation Group. Recently the ratio of mapped and validated tasks seems to have stabilized. For the last four month validation activity accounted for around 40% and mapping for around 60% of AmCross’ overall activity in the Tasking Manager. This time period coincides with a serious uptick in semi-unplanned mapping. As the world settled into a new normal, virtual volunteer events became more and more attractive to larger populations. As we know, it is generally easier to upscale mapping compared to validation. This trend can also be seen following our annual Geography Week events.
  4. Finally, to check who is actually doing the validation we scroll down to the users section on the website. We learn that in the last month there have been 6 users who did the major validation work: Bluemlisalp, jaggededge, crazy_mathi, AngleTarn, Ranek and Puxan. Each of these users validated more than 100 tasks in the Tasking Manager. Whereas it is somehow “normal” for a project like OSM that users contribute differently, from an organization perspective it would be good if validation work could be spread on more shoulders. Monitoring these numbers can help AmCross to improve their validation share and find the best way to engage more validators (in such difficult times where in person meetings are not possible).
Step 1: Select your organization.
Step 2: Check monthly numbers for mappers and validators.
Step 3: Check monthly ratio of mapped and validated tasks.
Step 4: Check user contributions for last month (February 2021).

Download the data in a spreadsheet

If you are interested to get the data behind these numbers and plots continue reading. On the website we offer a list of files to download. The activity.csv is the ones that you need for the monthly numbers for mappers, validators and to calculate the share of mapped and validated tasks. The user statistics can be obtained from the user_activity_sessions_per_month.csv file. For instance, for AmCross, this file will be located here: https://humstats.heigit.org/api/export/arc/activity.csv and https://humstats.heigit.org/api/export/arc/users_activity_sessions_per_month.csv.

To be continued

This is the 5th blog post of a series of posts we are currently working on. If you are interested please reach out to us (benjamin.herfort@heigit.org) and we can try to cover your questions in a future post.

We would like to send a big THANK YOU to all of our current validators. Your attention to detail and kind encouragement for our mappers is integral to our work and so appreciated. If you are interested in becoming a validator, please check out the Missing Maps website where new training materials will be added in Spring 2021.

Selected Related Publications

Herfort, B., Lautenbach, S., Porto de Albuquerque, J., Anderson, J., Zipf, A.The evolution of humanitarian mapping within the OpenStreetMap community. Scientific Reports 11, 3037 (2021). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82404-z  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82404-z

Raifer, Martin; Troilo, Rafael; Kowatsch, Fabian; Auer, Michael; Loos, Lukas; Marx, Sabrina; Przybill, Katharina; Fendrich, Sascha; Mocnik, Franz-Benjamin; Zipf, Alexander (2019): OSHDB: a framework for spatio-temporal analysis of OpenStreetMap history data. Open Geospatial Data, Software and Standards.

Auer, M.; Eckle, M.; Fendrich, S.; Griesbaum, L.; Kowatsch, F.; Marx, S.; Raifer, M.; Schott, M.; Troilo, R.; Zipf, A. (2018): Towards Using the Potential of OpenStreetMap History for Disaster Activation Monitoring. ISCRAM 2018. Rochester. NY. US.

Scholz, S., Knight, P., Eckle, M., Marx, S., Zipf, A. (2018): Volunteered Geographic Information for Disaster Risk Reduction: The Missing Maps Approach and Its Potential within the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Remote Sens., 10(8), 1239, doi:10.3390/rs10081239.

Tags: data quality, heigit, humanitarian, humanitarian mapping, HumanitarianOSMStats, OpenStreetMap

Posted in OSM, Research, Services

Comments are closed.

  • About

    GIScience News Blog
    News of Heidelberg University’s GIScience Research Group.
    There are 1,500 Posts and 0 Comments so far.

  • Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WordPress.org
  • Recent Posts

    • HELIOS++ v1.0.6 released
    • HeiGIT und DRK veröffentlichen weiteres Trainingsmaterial zu Mapathons 
    • German Mass Vaccination Sites in Open Healthcare Access Map
    • ohsome-py: Python Package for OSM history analytics published
    • Mapathon “Mapping for International Solidarity” on 06.04
  • Tags

    3D 3DGEO Big Spatial Data CAP4Access Citizen Science Colloquium crisis mapping Crowdsourcing data quality disaster DisasterMapping GeoNet.MRN GIScience heigit HOT humanitarian Humanitarian OpenStreetMap team intrinsic quality analysis isochrones landuse laser scanning Lidar Mapathon MapSwipe Missing Maps MissingMaps ohsome ohsome example Open data openrouteservice OpenStreetMap OSM OSM History Analytics OSMlanduse Quality quality analysis remote sensing routing social media spatial analysis Teaching terrestrial laser scanning VGI Wheelchair Navigation Workshop
  • Archives

    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
  •  

    March 2021
    M T W T F S S
    « Feb   Apr »
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • Recent Comments

    GIScience News Blog CC by-nc-sa Some Rights Reserved.

    Free WordPress Themes | Fresh WordPress Themes