SOTM 2010: Mapping accessibility in Castelfiorentino (ITALY)
Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)
-
Upload
nama-budhathoki -
Category
Documents
-
view
787 -
download
0
Transcript of Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)
![Page 1: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Who map in OpenStreetMap
and Why?
Nama Budhathoki, McGill University
Muki Haklay, University College London
Zorica Nedovic-Budic, University College Dublin
State of the Map 2010– Atlanta, USA, 14-15 August, 2010
![Page 2: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Looked from the traditional mode of
production, it is a puzzle (Benkler
2005, 2006)
Understanding this question lies at the
heart of the science of volunteered
geographic information (Goodchild 2007)
![Page 3: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Research questions
•Who are those mappers?
•Why do they map?
•What contributory pattern do mappers
demonstrate?
![Page 4: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Theoretical framework for VGI
motivational study
• Unique ethos
• Learning
• Fun
• Instrumentality
• Recreation
• Meeting self need
• Altruism
• Recognition
• Career
• Reciprocity
• Community
• Monetary
• Socio-political
• More………...
Clary et al. (1998), Clary and Synder (1999); Stebbins (1982), Gould et al. (2008);
Wasko and Faraj (2005), Lee et al. (2008), Hertel et al. (2003), Shah (2006), Hippel
and Krogh (2003), Nov (2007),
![Page 5: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Methodology
• Analysis of Planet.OSM to identify
patterns of contribution
• Qualitative analysis of talk-pages
• Survey of globally distributed contributors
![Page 6: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Who are the mappers?
Male(96%)
Female(3%)
N=426
Below 20 years(4%)
20-30 years(32%)
31-40 years(32%)
41-50 years(22%)
Above 50 years
(10%)
High School or
lower(5%)
Some College(17%)
College/ University
degree(49%)
Post-graduate degree(21%)
Doctoral degree(8%)
<1 year(26%)
1-5 years(15%)
6-10 years(7%)
>10 years(3%)
None(49%)
Gender Age
Education GIS Experience
![Page 7: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Student(17%)
Employed
(63%)
Retired (2%)
Self
employed
(15%)
Other(3%)
Commercial(71%)Academia
(11%)
Federal govt.(7%)
Local govt.(6%)
Non-profit(2%)
Other(3%)
Place In percent (%)
Home 96
Office 18
Mobile 13
Public libraries 0
Internet cafes 0.3
Others 0.6
Occupation Employment
![Page 8: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Being an author of books which are using maps, I am not
able to pay royalty fees to map companies like google or
teleatlas.
It's a lot of fun, and it's nice to see your work appear 1-2
hours after it's done available to the whole world :)
I love to see the area around where I live accurately mapped
(and updated in a timely manner). I get enormous
satisfaction out of this entire process as well as know that
I'm contributing towards a valuable resource that others
can use. I also enjoying exploring on my bike new areas
that I'm mapping - I've discovered some cool suburban
places that I never new existed - often within meters of
roads that I drive down regularly.
Motivations
![Page 9: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Perceived Motivations
Motivational construct Mean SD
Project goal 6.14 .77
Altruism 5.73 .83
Instrumentality of local knowledge 5.58 .81
Learning 5.29 .95
Self need 5.2 1.19
Social/Show off 4.04 1.00
Monetary 2.14 1.06
![Page 10: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Difference in perceived motivations between
serious & casual mappers
![Page 11: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Hypothesis Development
Motivational Factors
H3: Local knowledge
H2: Altruism
H1: Project goal
H4: Learning
H5: Self need
H6: Show-off
H7: Monetary
H8: Mapping party
Node
Longevity
Frequency
Contribution
![Page 12: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Contributory Pattern (Europe)
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
No.
of
Nod
es
No. of Days
![Page 13: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Contributory Pattern (Africa)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 20 40 60 80 100
No.
of N
odes
No. of Days
![Page 14: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Contributory Pattern (Asia)
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
0 100 200 300 400
No.
of
Nod
es
No. of Days
![Page 15: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Contributory Pattern (North America)
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
No.
of
Nod
es
No. of Days
![Page 16: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Contributory Pattern (South America)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
No.
of
Nod
es
No. of Days
![Page 17: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Contributory pattern in OSM
Registered users
117,000
Mappers
33,452 (29%)
Non-mappers
83,548 (71%)
34
• 44% are one-timers
• 5% have contributed more than 10,000 nodes
• 0.6% have contributed more than 100,000 nodes
Source: www.openstreetmap.org , downloaded from http://downloads.cloudmade.com/(Accessed on April, 2009)
![Page 18: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Continent level
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Africa Asia Europe North America
South America
Map
pers
(i
n %
)
One-time contributors >100 Node>1000 Node >10000 Node>100000 Node
![Page 19: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Main hypotheses Sig value (Pillai’s
trace)
Sub-hypotheses Unstandardized
parameter estimates
Sig-value
H1: Project goal 0.030* Node (H1a) -0.615 0.012*
Longevity (H1b) -0.328 0.093
Frequency(H1c) -0.362 0.005*
H2: Altruism 0.080 Node (H2a) -0.440 0.049*
Longevity(H2b) -0.072 0.689
Frequency(H2c) -0.206 0.080
H3: Instrumentality
of local knowledge
0.000* Node(H3a) 2.011 0.000*
Longevity(H3b) 1.275 0.000*
Frequency(H3c) 1.038 0.000*
H4: Learning 0.877 Node(H4a) 0.054 0.794
Longevity(H4b) -0.064 0.697
Frequency(H4c) 0.001 0.995
H5: Self need 0.977 Node(H5a) 0.022 0.868
Longevity(H5b) -0.009 0.936
Frequency(H5c) 0.015 0.837
H6: Show off 0.454 Node(H6a) -0.263 0.180
Longevity(H6b) -0.215 0.171
Frequency(H6c) -0.105 0.311
H7: Monetary 0.724 Node(H7a) 0.097 0.593
Longevity(H7b) -0.033 0.822
Frequency(H7c) 0.046 0.633
H8: Mapping party 0.486 Node(H8a) 0.710 0.242
Longevity(H8b) 0.029 0.953
Frequency(H8c) 0.239 0.454
Hypothesis Testing
![Page 20: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Motivations Sig. Value
Monetary 0.035*
Learning 0.922
Instrumentality of local knowledge 0.008*
Project Goal 0.574
Altruism 0.200
Show-off 0.110
Self need 0.625
Community importance 0.622
Identity 0.595
Self view 0.012*
Socio-political agenda 0.794
Serious mappers
![Page 21: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
7.3% 12.1%
75.6%
5%0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
It will increase my
contribution
I will decrease my
contribution
It will not affect my
contribution
I will stop
contributing
How will the involvement of commercial companies affect your contribution to the
project?
![Page 22: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Summary and implications
• Instrumentality of Local knowledge as a
key motivator of contribution
• Representation of local area
• Accuracy of map
• Self efficacy
• Fun
• Those who have higher monetary
motivation, local knowledge, and self view are
likely to be serious mappers.
![Page 23: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
• Why cann’t those with other motivations can’t
make good contribution?
• Learning materials
• Ease of use of the system
• Social network
Summary and implications
![Page 24: Sotm us 2010 (nama r. budhathoki)](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052523/55550eb9b4c905c35e8b546b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Feel free to contact me for more information:
http://budhathoki.wordpress.com
Thanks for listening!