[OSGeo-Discuss] Munich Orientation Convention, Mapcodes, and All the Rest

[David William Bitner]

Just to also add some concrete examples of other ways that USNG is being
used, particularly for things like off-road trails, take a look at
http://usngcenter.org/portfolio-item/elm-system/ and
http://www.twincities.com/old/home/ci_23229150/minnesota-marker-signs-might-look-funny-until-you
.

USNG has wide applicability in the ability to be used on maps, in
GPS/Mobile Phone/ displays, and with markers such as these that can replace
(or be used alongside) things that can be ambiguous like mile markers and
fire numbers.

Steve's point on trying to converge on a single standard for this type of
use is a very important point. For emergency response, you really do want
something that everyone (from the 5th grader to the Sheriff) knows how to
recognize and use *before they need it*.

Whether there are other systems that may be better in certain scenarios,
USNG has proven utility across many. By standardizing on it, it is very
similar to being able to teach our children to dial 911 rather than having
a different emergency number for fire, police, ambulance in each and every
jurisdiction.

By being able to do things like incorporating into signs (or GPS or mobile
apps) the emergency response can become something more along the lines of
VICTIM: "I'm in the park on a trail and am hurt" DISPATCHER: "Are there any
trail signs around you that have a blue sign with a block of 8 digits, can
you read those to me".

David

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Steve Swazee <sdswazee at sharedgeo.org>
wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> Good afternoon.  Per your comments below, I’ll try to keep this simple.
>
>
>
> As a former military and airline pilot I am acutely aware that there is
> not one panacea coordinate system.  Latitude/longitude is appropriate for
> worldwide aviation and sea going navigation.  In a past life, I was trained
> in UTM for surveying  – and so on.  However, the most fundamental role any
> government can have is the protection of its citizens.  On an international
> basis, that mission falls to the armed forces.  On a local basis, that
> mission falls to the first response community.  Ongoing efforts in the
> United States which are driving the legislative and policy efforts to
> incorporate use of USNG are coming primarily from the first response
> community because 35% of their calls go to a location without a street
> address.  It is not only a significant problem, it is a HUGE problem that
> is becoming compounded by the rate at which individuals are unplugging
> their hard wired land lines in lieu of cells phones only.  Thus, there is a
> need for a geolocation STANDARD for first response.  And if you know
> anything at all about this community – you would know everything is about
> standards.  It does no good to call a fire crew from the next city over if
> their hose couplings won’t work on your town’s fire hydrants.
>
>
>
> So a question.  If not USNG as the “language of location” for first
> response, then what?  The reason adoption is taking off in the US is
> because everyone that has honestly considered that question comes back to
> the same conclusion  - nothing beats the USNG/MGRS coordinate system in the
> realm of first response.  A system which had an original design criteria of
> an 8th grader must be able to learn it 15 minutes, has just as much
> utility in the first response community as it does in the last response
> military community.  And by extension, for the first response community to
> be able to use it effectively, the public must also know how to use it.
> Consequently, there must be a standard for this purpose and only ONE
> standard, otherwise you don’t have a standard.  Thus, the concern about
> promotion of other coordinate systems that are inferior on many levels.
>
>
>
> Now that I have your attention, I believe you and the rest of the OSGeo
> community would be well served by spending some time truly learning about
> this issue.  In so doing, I’m sure the open minds among you will come to
> the conclusion that USNG/MGRS is the answer to the issue I am addressing.
> OSGeo could do the world a heap of good in doing so.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Moules [mailto:J.Moules at hrwallingford.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2015 7:39 AM
> *To:* 'sdswazee at sharedgeo.org' <sdswazee at sharedgeo.org>; '
> discuss at lists.osgeo.org' <discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Munich Orientation Convention, Mapcodes,
> and All the Rest
>
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
>
>
> Ø  A little research on the topic of USNG/MGRS and how it works would be
> of benefit to those who wish to slam a worldwide referencing system created
> after WWII when a NATO armed forces business review determined the Allies
> got too many people killed trying to use latitude/longitude when street
> addresses don’t work.  The answer isn’t hypothetical, it’s written in
> blood.
>
> I’ve not seen anyone “slam” the MRGS. I did point out myself that it
> serves a slightly different, albeit somewhat overlapping purpose to those
> other systems that have been highlighted earlier. It’s clearly great for
> the military and I have little doubt it’d be similarly useful for
> first-responders. That said, that doesn’t mean it’s a perfect fit for the
> civil world where military or even first-responder discipline is in short
> supply.
>
>
>
> Ø  (two less than a phone number, and who can’t remember that?)
>
> Lots-of-people can’t remember them (
> http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/12/cant-remember-phone-numbers-youre-not-alone/
> - or
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7885227/Most-people-cannot-remember-partners-mobile-phone-number.html
> )
>
>
>
> “An online test to assess the [UK’s] ability to recall sequences of
> numbers found nine in 10 cannot remember a mobile phone number after an
> interlude of just five seconds”
>
>
>
> I’m not sure how your examples show MGRS as superior. In the first case
> the problems appear to have been institutional, and in the second it’s a
> lack of navigation/map-reading skills on the part of both the teacher and
> the first wave of responders. In neither case would MGRS or any other
> system been helpful. If you don’t know where you are, you can’t
> communicate, and if the people you’re communicating with aren’t listening,
> there’s little benefit to communicating in the first place.
>
>
>
> I don’t know what the solution is, but it doesn’t seem like MGRS would be
> the panacea you put forth, just like I suspect there are problems with the
> other systems. But I do agree with you and others that it’s an important
> subject.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [
> mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org <discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Steve Swazee
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:26 PM
> *To:* discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> *Subject:* [OSGeo-Discuss] Munich Orientation Convention, Mapcodes, and
> All the Rest
>
>
>
> Dr. Reed, et al.,
>
> “Somehow I do not see a dispatcher saying to a responding officer, "Shots
> fired at 103132" :-)”  Carl, you are wrong.
>
>
>
> On June 30, 2013, 19 wildland firefighters lost their lives when a wall of
> fast moving flame over took their position at the Yarnell Hill fire in
> Arizona.  Reports from that incident attempt to gloss over a body of
> evidence pointing to geospatial ineptness at all levels with terms like
> “fog of war” and “communication clutter”.  It is the only way those at the
> top of the food chain can defend themselves from the reality that as those
> firefighters climbed into their last defense fire shelters known as “shake
> and bake bags”, those 19 souls were unable to quickly and effectively
> communicate their location and request help.  A truly unfortunate
> circumstance given there was a large airborne tanker full of retardant
> circling directly overhead their position.  This incident has sparked an
> ongoing debate in the wildland fire community - that like the armed forces
> before it – the nation’s wildland fire community needs to get onboard with
> use of the USNG/MGRS.  Try this:  Mayday, Mayday, Mayday – 8975 4563.  For
> those who know how the grid works, those 8 digits (two less than a phone
> number, and who can’t remember that?) just passed location for a retardant
> drop with a location accuracy of 33’.
>
>
>
> On May 22, 2013, grade school students from a Minneapolis suburb were on a
> fossil hunting field trip at the Lilydale Regional Park which sits along
> the Mississippi River flats in St. Paul, MN.  A landslide there buried two
> children and a desperate call for help was made to the 911 center.  Street
> address for a large rambling park that stretches for miles – one.  Ability
> of a panicked teacher unfamiliar with the area to describe location in the
> park so someone could understand – zero.  Smartphone triangulation – crap.
>  But it doesn’t stop there.  Despite the park being in the middle of dense
> urban area, it took responders more than 50 minutes to locate the incident
> site, and even after the first wave of responders found the location, those
> responders were unable to provide information about their location for
> additional assistance.   Outcome?  Two dead children.  Beyond that loss of
> life, the incident has cost the City of St. Paul something north of $1.5
> million.  The result has been a heap of soul searching about how to
> communicate location when a street address won’t work.  Carl, from being
> here for the TC GECCo, you already know what the answer is.  In the City of
> St. Paul, Minnesota, responders are now expected to know what “Shots fired
> at 103132” means.  Too bad it took the death of these two children in 2013
> to force adoption of a plan laid out in 2011.
>
>
>
> If you want more examples, I have them – responders in Florida are now
> using 6 digit grid coordinates (100 meter accuracy) to communicate the
> coordinates of helicopter landing zones – and so on.
>
>
>
> The naïve and uniformed comments I have been reading on this board in an
> effort to promote a new best thing for communicating location, are
> troubling in the extreme.  I believe part of the charter of OSGeo is
> service to the common good.  Yet, the reality of these plans and promotions
> fly in the face of the Harry S. Truman quote: “It is amazing what you can
> accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”  In an effort to be
> “the hero” who solves the street address problem – the hawking of these
> half-baked plans here and elsewhere (see the recent New Yorker magazine Map
> Codes article:
> http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/should-mapcodes-replace-gps?mbid=social_facebook)
> is creating geospatial confusion at the cost of lives.
>
>
>
> A little research on the topic of USNG/MGRS and how it works would be of
> benefit to those who wish to slam a worldwide referencing system created
> after WWII when a NATO armed forces business review determined the Allies
> got too many people killed trying to use latitude/longitude when street
> addresses don’t work.  The answer isn’t hypothetical, it’s written in
> blood.
>
>
>
> I return to my original point in response to the Munich Orientation
> Convention posting. “If OSGeo wanted to do something to truly help the
> world gain better situational awareness, it would stop for a moment and
> reflect on the realities of these "new" best ideas for relating location -
> the same way it has inserted itself into the open LiDAR discussion - and
> begin working to understand and promote the Military Gird Reference System
> (MGRS). “  It DOES MATTER what you build into your Open Source Software for
> location referencing – in a big way.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl
> <http://www.mailcontrol.com/>, a service from BlackSpider Technology
>
> Click here
> <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1YuXD28qfFLGX2PQPOmvUkHxlm0SZLPCU9Io9VWyl551gFh6bHaPhcG+AJqwcBxyLtOI3TDZ9OHCXaTERp6oIw==>
> to report this email as spam.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *HR Wallingford and its subsidiaries* uses faxes and emails for
> confidential and legally privileged business communications. They do not of
> themselves create legal commitments. Disclosure to parties other than
> addressees requires our specific consent. We are not liable for
> unauthorised disclosures nor reliance upon them.
> If you have received this message in error please advise us immediately
> and destroy all copies of it.
>
> HR Wallingford Limited
> Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA, United Kingdom
> Registered in England No. 02562099
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
************************************
David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
612-424-9932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150730/7ef6d321/attachment-0002.html>