Humanitarian OSM Team/Open Mapping Hub West and Northern Africa/Community/OSMer in Residence

Problem / opportunity

MSF is a humanitarian organisation where maps and data support operations. The organisation operates at speed and, by necessity, prioritises activities based on operational need. OpenStreetMap is a key resource and the greater quality / coverage there is in MSF geographical areas of interest, the better for MSF.

OpenStreetMap is an open source community project. It is flexible and innovative, but decision making and action are based on community consensus, so therefore not that fast. MSF wants to develop workflows to better leverage OSM for operations, but also to contribute good quality data back to the OSM project. Both of these ambitions are challenging because of the mismatch in pace and priority for MSF and the OSM community. Concretely, MSF want to achieve the following objectives:

• Create better workflows for rapid field data entry into the OSM database (through organised editing);
• Contribute historical data from previous surveys and automated feature extraction to the OSM database (through imports).

The challenge is that MSF allocates resources based on its humanitarian mandate and therefore is highly unlikely to invest in human resources to manage something like the OSM imports process.

Who is affected?

MSF GIS Centre (and, downstream, operational teams)

MSF Missing Maps team

OpenStreetMap communities (core and local, depending on data source)

Other actors providing services response in the same geographical areas (including potential replicability / adaptability for other Missing Maps members)

HOT (understanding of the bridging role it can play in these scenarios)

Open Mapping Hubs (regional perspectives on OSMer in Residence idea as well as adaptation of workflows)

Solution / idea

Based on the concept of the Wiklipedian in Residence, the idea is for Open Mapping Hub - West and Northern Africa (one of four Open Mapping Hubs powered by HOT) to pilot an OSMer in Residence programme, where an OpenStreetMap expert from the regional community would be embedded in the GIS Centre with a mandate to develop and test effective and appropriate workflows to achieve the above objectives, meeting the needs of MSF whilst ensuring that workflows respect OSM values and the agency of local communities.

The resident would essentially be seconded to the MSF GIS Centre for a predefined period with a specific mandate, but would be resourced and supported by HOT. The embedded nature of the resident is important to ensure that value can be generated through the work based on a deep understanding of MSF’s existing challenges and ways of working.

Expected impact / benefit

• A smooth and accepted process for MSF to leverage and contribute to OSM as part of the GIS team’s work (ie. achievement of the above objectives) that is adaptable / replicable by others;
• An understanding of where the Open Mapping Hubs, HOT, local communities and other organisations can plug into the MSF geo-data workflow and collaborate to increase the quality and coverage of data in OSM;
• Increased documentation and understanding in OSM communities on the nature and needs of MSF and other NGO data contributors;
• Increased understanding of how to interact with OSM and local OSM communities (as well as stronger OSM relationships / networks);
• From a pilot perspective, if successful, the potential for scaling this type of initiative is high. If this works, it could be replicated in other Missing Maps member organisation's, iNGOs, CSOs etc.

How will we measure success / failure?

• At least one tested and documented pilot of an organised editing workflow for MSF to contribute data to OSM that improves upon previous workflows according to specialists in the MSF GIS Centre and is acceptable to the OSM community;
• At least one successful and documented import in collaboration with a local OSM community that results in high quality data contributed to the OSM database;
• Documented successes, failures and lessons learned from the OSMer in Residence pilot.

Anticipated risks

• Time to support & access to key staff members in host organisation - this is critical for ensuring the OSMer in residence can be successful in the role;
• Sustainability: expectations of who should fund this in future;
• Balancing MSF interests with OSM interests.

Who are the most important stakeholders / users?

This includes, but is broader than, the people affected. Could include partners, community collaborators, funders, etc, as well as improve data sharing and accessibility within MSF.

OKR-related? Which one?

Which lessons learnt HOT-wide OKRs or aspects of HOT’s Theory of Change does this idea contribute to?

OKRs (HOT internal):

• Accelerate the open mapping movement by delivering visible results for local challenges;
• Create collaboration opportunities for communities and partners to find solutions to problems with maps;

Notes from initial chats / brainstorms:

• Funding - who should fund this in future?
• If in 3-6 months data team have created more resources - do we have a summer cohort of 5 OSMers in residence that have on boarding with HOT, before;
• Best practices for using OSM data across our impact areas -- how can we get a community member outside of HOT (who doesn’t have the institutional knowledge  best practice)