Localisation and attribution


#1

Here is a brief summary of the discussion we’ve had with @luc.galoppin and @jan.fabry (https://vicinia.be).
3 important tasks for both maps.dewey.be & vicinia

(1) getting unambiguous data
On maps.dewey.be, the markers indicate the location of “shared resource” without mentioning clearly whether it is …

  1. a piece of infrastructure (e.g. a defibrilator, a fountain, a public garden, a station w/ shared vehicules etc.),
  2. an organization (e.g. health association, naturalist association, transition group, …)
  3. an “activity” (e.g. workshops, etc.)

(2) licences
For the moment, all data are licenced ODbL / CC-BY-SA. Discussion with Jan?

(3) developping a Common API :
a common API which would enable the users to select specific datasets, with specific variables, and generate thematic maps like these ones http://maps.dewey.be/frame/add). This is what Hellekin is currently working on (see: incommon.cc)


Règlement général sur la protection des données
#2

Fully agree with this summary.
With regards to the 1st point ‘unambiguous data’ we experience the exact same challenge, because there is often an overlap between:

  1. A neighborhood initiative
  2. A physical place
  3. An actor
    Typical example: maison de jeunes (1,2,3) or an asbl (1,3), etc.
    Currently we have chosen to allow all sorts of combinations and we want to review and maybe even re-categorize when we reach 1000.

#3

Well this task might need to be split in a series of subtasks… :sweat_smile:

While I understand very well the issue of unambiguous or ambiguous data , i do not understand your answer to it, what do you mean by “combinations” ??


#4

Maybe ‘combinations’ is not the right word to use here.
What I mean is that we are not applying very strict definitions and blakc-on-white boundaries when it comes to the three data objects.


#5

do you mean that you have overlapping categories that create a new one when they merge, or is it rather non predertermined categorisation, something more like hashtags, that can be created by users you will recategorise over time (when you reach 1000)??


#6

Rather the second: we are being very tolerant when people create a maison des jeunes as a Place and others create it as an Initiative. Yet, other people experience a maison des jeunes in their context as an Actor.

Over time, when we have a lot of data we will be able to set better rules and boundaries to that. But for now our goal is to keep people motivated to create their stuff in the atlas.

Learning as we go…


#7

Hi @luc.galoppin,

in the current models of IN COMMON API, we distinguish the following:

  • A Resource represents a geographic Feature (in GeoJSON terms), which can be:
    • an Entity: human organization (an “Actor” in your terms)
    • a Place : a physical space (building, road…)
    • a Service : something that is offered by an Entity (or person) to other people
    • a Thing : what @mathieu called “a piece of infrastructure”, e.g., a defibrillator, a fountain, etc.

The difference between a Place and a Thing is not always obvious: a rule of thumb is that a Place can be inhabited, e.g., by Things.

The case of “maison des jeunes” is interesting:

  • the building would be a Place
  • the association running the building would be an Entity
  • the Entity would provide Services and Things
  • all this would be a Collection (FeatureCollection in GeoJSON)

Hope that helps.


#8

Indeed - this helps - thanks!