Comments on: Misconceptions and Objections to Gaza Mapping: My Response

By: mikel

mikel — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:02:30 +0000

I’ve conferred with my subcommittee on proper blog nomenclature, and after two rounds of voting, we accept this proposed change to “institutions”, but reserve the right to revert back to “bureaucracies” as we see fit.

Seriously you’re right, and thanks for check.

By: Paul C

Paul C — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:20:36 +0000

Rather I was criticizing the perception of bureaucracies as the only ones who can generate trustworthy data.

That’s a fair point, although perhaps we could say “institutions” rather than “bureaucracies”?

By: David Megginson

David Megginson — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:13:59 +0000

There are, unfortunately, people in the world who equate information with power, and want to hoard that (imaginary) power to themselves. They’ll always try to think up reasonable-sounding excuses to stop a project like yours, whether they consider themselves left- or right-wing, pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, and so on. Good work answering them with clear, well-reasoned arguments!

By: mikel

mikel — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:40:31 +0000

Paul — Certainly OSM Gaza wouldn’t stand up to the same criticism at this point. We don’t have ground truthing, only a lot of web investigation. There’s the potential for ground truthing, in partnership with Gazans and responders, but that’s of course not very close to reality yet for anyone.

I wasn’t so much criticizing the EC — as these guys do excellent work, and I believe they really reached out by releasing their data in any way at all. Rather I was criticizing the perception of bureaucracies as the only ones who can generate trustworthy data.

I’m working hard to see hybrids happen. OSM is constantly changing and adapting, and the mapping is going to be stronger when both approaches work together. That’s not without huge questions, but I’m glad to see many receptive minds in the humanitarian community.

By: Paul C

Paul C — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:07:42 +0000

Mikel – all of your points are valid, and these objections to OSM are nothing that we haven’t heard before against mapping in general. I would say that ground truthing is the critical component that is missing in this instance – for very good reasons, of course, but it seems a little unfair to criticise the EC data on those grounds. What you see as a closed source they see as maintaining a level of control over their datastream (which I think is a valid reason, although not one I share – but they’re a big bureaucracy and I’m not)(at least, I think I’m not.). The trick is to bring the streams together to build a stronger overall picture – this is where OSM is playing the critical role.

By: Tom Chance

Tom Chance — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:16:53 +0000

Mikel, this is fantastic work and it gives a lot of activists and ex-pats something small but immediate and practical that they can do in the face of the violence. Keep it up!

By: Eric Wolf

Eric Wolf — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:37:10 +0000

After the Katrina disaster in the US, parts of New Orleans were completely submerged. The street signs and house numbers were missing, destroyed or obscured. First responders were having to convert street addresses to lat/long in order to get to survivors. Even if Gazans know Gaza like the back of their hand, there is need for accurate streets.

As for publishing information, the only real defense Gaza has now is information to counter the disinformation created by the Israelis. Good maps, accessible to the world press, help demonstrate the severity of attacks.