OpenStreetMap Collaborative Prototype, Phase 1

Wolf, Eric B.; Matthews, Greg D.; McNinch, Kevin; Poore, Barbara S.

doi:10.3133/ofr20111136

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Van Exel and Dias ( 2011 ) are exploring how analysis of user behavior in OSM can serve as a proxy for trust and authority. Spatial data infrastructures could bene fi t by looking at the close coupling of the map and its explanatory context and could develop better systems for encouraging user feedback, as the USGS research on volunteered geographic information referred to above may show (Wolf et al 2011 ;van Oort et al 2009 ) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The impetus for examining the role of metadata in the GeoWeb resulted from a project the USGS undertook in 2010 to test whether volunteered geographic information (Goodchild 2007b ) could be incorporated into The National Map ( www.nationalmap.gov ) of the USGS (Wolf et al 2011 ) . This ongoing project is using the database structure and the editor Potlatch 2, developed by the OpenStreetMap (OSM) community, to collect and manage geospatial data produced by volunteers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Metadata Squared: Enhancing Its Usability for Volunteered Geographic Information and the GeoWeb

Poore

Wolf

2012

Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Internet has brought many changes to the way geographic information is created and shared. One aspect that has not changed is metadata. Static spatial data quality descriptions were standardized in the mid-1990s and cannot accommodate the current climate of data creation where nonexperts are using mobile phones and other location-based devices on a continuous basis to contribute data to Internet mapping platforms. The usability of standard geospatial metadata is being questioned by academics and neogeographers alike. This chapter analyzes current discussions of metadata to demonstrate how the media shift that is occurring has affected requirements for metadata. Two case studies of metadata use are presented-online sharing of environmental information through a regional spatial data infrastructure in the early 2000s, and new types of metadata that are being used today in OpenStreetMap, a map of the world created entirely by volunteers.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metadata Squared: Enhancing Its Usability for Volunteered Geographic Information and the GeoWeb

Poore

Wolf

2012

Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2010, the USGS, National Geospatial Program began exploring the feasibility of using citizen scientists to help improve data for The National Map (http://nationalmap.gov). After hosting an information-gathering citizen science workshop and several follow-on pilot projects (Wolf et al 2011;Poore et al 2012), The National Map Corps (TNMCorps) volunteers began collecting and improving the geographic names and locations associated with man-made structures data. This effort began over a small, pilot area near Denver, Colorado, in 2011, expanded to the State of Colorado in 2012, and then finally was implemented across the United States in 2013.…”

Section: Please Scroll Down For Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Crowdsourcing The National Map

McCartney

Craun

Korris

et al. 2015

Cartography and Geographic Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The USGS in the USA managed to avoid the copyright, licensing and cost issues that have bedevilled some other countries, and are now moving rapidly towards incorporating OSM data into their National Map project (Wolf et al, 2011; see also the USGS VGI Workshop , 2010, at USGS VGI Workshop (2010, http://cegis.usgs.gov/vgi/index.html). They are, however, looking the gift horse in the mouth quite carefully and considering all the questions and issues that have been raised in this review paper by the venerable mapping academy.…”

Section: Usa -Usgsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crowdsourced Mapping – Letting Amateurs Into the Temple?

McCullagh

Jackson

2013

Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The rise of crowdsourced mapping data is well documented and attempts to integrate such information within existing or potential NSDIs [National Spatial Data Infrastructures] are increasingly being examined. The results of these experiments, however, have been mixed and have left many researchers uncertain and unclear of the benefits of integration and of solutions to problems of use for such combined and potentially synergistic mapping tools. This paper reviews the development of the crowdsource mapping movement and discusses the applications that have been developed and some of the successes achieved thus far. It also describes the problems of integration and ways of estimating success, based partly on a number of on-going studies at the University of Nottingham that look at different aspects of the integration problem: iterative improvement of crowdsource data quality, comparison between crowdsourced data and prior knowledge and models, development of trust in such data, and the alignment of variant ontologies. Questions of quality arise, particularly when crowdsource data are combined with pre-existing NSDI data. The latter is usually stable, meets international standards and often provides national coverage for use at a variety of scales. The former is often partial, without defined quality standards, patchy in coverage, but frequently addresses themes very important to some grass roots group and often to society as a whole. This group might be of regional, national, or international importance that needs a mapping facility to express its views, and therefore should combine with local NSDI initiatives to provide valid mapping. Will both groups use ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) and OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium) standards? Or might some extension or relaxation be required to accommodate the mostly less rigorous crowdsourced data? So, can crowdsourced data ever be safely and successfully merged into an NSDI? Should it be simply a separate mapping layer? Is full integration possible providing quality standards are fully met, and methods of defining levels of quality agreed? Frequently crowdsourced data sets are anarchic in composition, and based on new and sometimes unproved technologies. Can an NSDI exhibit the necessary flexibility and speed to deal with such rapid technological and societal change?

show abstract

OpenStreetMap Collaborative Prototype, Phase 1

Cited by 9 publications

References 4 publications

Metadata Squared: Enhancing Its Usability for Volunteered Geographic Information and the GeoWeb

Metadata Squared: Enhancing Its Usability for Volunteered Geographic Information and the GeoWeb

Crowdsourcing The National Map

Crowdsourced Mapping – Letting Amateurs Into the Temple?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About