The actor list (state, company, armed_group, settler, individual, beyond the criminal question above) — does it cover who you actually document? Missing paramilitaries, narco actors? Actor attribution
is this somethign that could be customised if there were particular detailed granulizations that people wanted to make?
How much detail to force for a farm. Production is the one area that stores a full three-level tree (type → subtype → item); everywhere else (minerals, species, equipment) we store one value and group it later. Should farming match the simpler pattern? Land Use Production
I don't understand the question
The “use” label carries only “seasonal” and “historical” — a broad word for two narrow ideas. Fine, or rename? Feature Taxonomy
how about if it is only used by certain families, or certain people in a community (women, shamans) - or only used for certain ceremonies.
fpic_status values repeat “fpic_” in every value (fpic_obtained, fpic_violated). Nothing else in the system does that. Trim it, or keep it because it reads clearly in an export? Access and Permission
where did the fpic status options come from? are we drawing from somewhere here?
treating drug crops as ordinary cultivation
they should be able to be tagged as legal or illegal
“Agriculture” as the label covering ranching, grazing, and fish-farming — a stretch for the last two. Better umbrella? Activity Taxonomy
I think agriculture is fine if the grazing is, eg. cleared land in the forest for grazing beef cattle. but not really the same as grazing areas of Maasai for whom cattle are much more than just an agri-food product.
“Extraction” for fishing and hunting. The word fits mining and logging; a crew netting fish as “extraction” reads oddly. Keep it as the cover word, or find a better one? Extraction Taxonomy
So here if we could have a term that was something like livelihoods or subsistence when it was the community or allowed local fishing, and extraction if it is auauthorised? Or what other terms come up as options?
Pristine.” The top of the condition scale is “pristine — no human impact,” which quietly treats untouched-by-people as the ideal. That sits oddly when the whole territory is lived-in. Right word, or should it describe ecological health without implying the absence of people? Condition Tag
The problem for me is the definition as 'no human impact' rather than the term pristine. This is the kind of 'quiet' that we want to route out and bury - I don't think it is acceptable. Yes please describe ecological health without implying absence of people.
When recording who is responsible for something, the choices include state, company, armed_group, settler, and criminal. “Criminal” is a judgement, not an observation — and in many places, the state calls land defenders criminals. Should we keep it (with a tight definition), rename it to something neutral, or drop it and let a separate “unauthorised” tag carry the meaning? Actor attribution
yes, criminal too much of a judgement I think. unauthorised is better from my pov
Anything else you record regularly that doesn’t fit cleanly. Name it; that’s how the gaps get found.
How about things that aren't there - mapping where something should be but isn't. eg. ice - sea ice melt eg. a lake that has dried up
Crop and livestock disease — a blight or an animal-disease outbreak. We cover human health outbreaks but not these. Do you document them, and should they have a home?
The Ogiek are trying to monitor diseased bamboo - would this be possible?
The two “seasonal”s. A place used only in one season vs an operation paused for its off-season use the same word, kept apart by context. Is that enough? Lifecycle Tag
How does this translate I wonder. In English we use the same word I wonder though if the same term is used everywhere. If there were different terms that would be better. Makes me wonder how any of this works in an internationalizable way - is it all seamlessly translatable or is it grounded in English?
A sacred place that is its own thing vs sacredness added to a place. A burial ground is recorded as a heritage place; a sacred mountain stays a mountain with “sacred” added. Is that distinction clear? Feature Taxonomy
I think this is almost impossible to make a universal rule on. People will just see things differently. A mountain might be sacred in its essence, eg. used to be a god - it is a different kind of 'thing' to a non sacred mountain. Or all mountains might be considered sacred.
A muddy river can be logged as a damaged place, or as a contamination zone you track for cleanup. When is it worth its own record? Impact Taxonomy
would this not be decided by those setting up the project - so they would likely choose one or the other and not have the option of someone in the field having to choose between the two.
1.4 Does it have the details needed for reports?
I see that the model references Local Contexts - is there an option for people to add tags that specifically refer to labels they have created within Local Contexts for data sovereignty
C. Purpose as a detail: one home for each kind of take, with own-use vs commercial as an optional tag.
I think perhaps this one, with an added 'legal / illegal' optional tag to differentiate between allowed community harvesting for sale vs. illegal external harvesting for sale. (some external groups might also be allowed to take for their own use). I think this one gives most options to clafiry exactly what is going on?
D. Us vs them: the community taking in its own territory is harvesting; outsiders taking is extraction.
I think this is likely how many people will think about it instinctively, but it is perhaps too ambiguous with too many grey areas (and people making different calls).
Which categories feel shaped by one region and won’t fit the places you work? What is missing for your context that we’d never think to add?
Can we have a simpler 'list' to look at in order to answer this, the way the material is presented I haven't found this easy to answer. I did go through different category sets I am familiar with, and most seem pretty straightforward to map onto the kind of tagging system presented. The one that presented most challenges was the Ogiek biodiversity on, because of how they have currently organised their data collection they have only a few high level categories (eg. quadrat monitoring) under which they have a LOT of questions to collect all the information on bamboo health and otehr aspects of the quadrat (season, data collectors name, any animal evidence). So probably that one would have to be split out into different categories with their own tags. It might be worth you looking at that category set / talking to Tom or Steph to understand why they set it up like that. (I can also ask, but I think the useful information would then be mediated through me as a less than perfect channel given the technicality of things).
Where do your teams hesitate — for example between an event and the damage it left (the spill versus the lasting contamination)?
I think there will always be issues and 'mistakes' made in terms of how things are labelled in the field - projects are messy, trainings not always comprehensive, or more people brought on, people might be using this as part of a big project with little or even no training, so there must be a way of adjusting things afterwards in the office and adjusting category types etc.
For the example given (a spill or the lasting contamination) could this be within a details question which then adjusts the taxonmy assigned?
1.1 Should people in the field ever have to think about the four “kinds”?
I think there should be pathways so that users don't have to think about these kinds. There will be users (there are users) for whom CoMapeo might be the first time they are using a phone, and having to deal with any kind of text or decision making is problematic. Having the simplest workflow for recording an observation / evidence is really important.
As Rudo says in comment below - there could be cases where exposing some decision making (as an option) could help users learn about the data structure and data in general - but if it's one or the other I would say keep this hidden in the field.
ValuesSection titled “Values” fpic_obtained - Proper FPIC process completed with consent given fpic_violated - Activity proceeded without proper FPIC fpic_partial - Some consultation occurred but did not meet full FPIC standards fpic_withdrawn - Consent was initially given but later withdrawn by community fpic_ongoing - FPIC consultation process is currently in progress fpic_not_applicable - FPIC not relevant (e.g., outside Indigenous territories) fpic_unknown - FPIC status unclear or unverified
did these come from somewhere?
A cattle corral
if this is specifically cattle this needs to be a tag. goats and sheep and perhaps camels and reindeer might also have corrals.
its reservoir is impact IM-5, building it AC-5
I would consider the reservoir a feature too - unless it was new or had issues that data was being collected about. I think if people mapped the dam and reservoir they'd expect both to appear on a map of features they produced?
Impacts are the spine of the project: they’re updated over time as remediation status changes, and the goal is impact:remediation=completed once forest is restored. Activities capture the restoration work. Features capture the regenerating ecosystem.
I can sort of follow all of this - but it's one of those things that's hard to actually visualise in terms of how people interact with it.
entity=impact, impact=contamination, extraction=mining
So this categorises it as mining impact, rather than impact on water source. we might need to get more granular for this?
Category “Cleared forest area” → entity=impact, impact=clearing, extraction=mining
If you were just monitoring general impacts in a territory where there were land invasions for mining and agriculture and logging and settlements, it might not be known what the clearing was for - this might be known later on. can it be without the third tag and then added to an entity later when this is known?
Health — observable human health conditions (injuries, illness, malnutrition, mental health)
perhaps this relates to my question above - so these couldn't be impacts of incidents?
When creating categories: Ask “Is this a lasting change to the landscape? Can it be remediated? Does it have a cause?” If yes, it’s an impact.
How about things that impact human beings directly, how would we classify / tag these. eg. a death of someone due to sickness from oil contamination eg. injuries caused by violence during an eviction incident. These are not necessarily permanent geo-locations - but we can take a location along with collecting the evidence.
Logging operations
selective logging, eg. just taking out mahogany here and there. Would this be an activity? If individuals came in and just took out one tree, and someone else another tree a week later, can this model allow us to class these as incidents, without a corresponding activity?
Mining operations
Artisinal mining can be very mobile. One spot for a few days, another spot a few days later. I guess this would just be a category distinction if both existed in the same context (eg. temporary artisanal mining operation vs. ongoing mining operation) and they could have different tags - but in this case the artisanal mining could perhaps be an incident? or do you think it would always be an activity even if quite short timeframe.
Direct incident observations are rare (witnessing event as it happens)
witnessing a mining operation - it is an ongoing activity (the mining activity) but you might be able to see them in action every time you go, the digging and pumping etc.
witnessing the flares from an oil well burning off gas - ongoing
I think lots of incidents might be observed directly. Not sure if this really changes anything in this system, but just that it's not always like an oil spill which perhaps rarely is seen actually coming out of the pipe or act of violence (although many of these are now documneted by bystanders, eg. police violence).
Temporal aspect: Exists continuously, no start/end times (though lifecycle can track construction/abandonment)
I am wondering about seasonal changes. Seems like these would be features - but can we add tags that allow for differentiation and representation of their seasonality. eg. fruiting trees in the Amazon for seasonal gathering eg. seasonal pastures for pastoralists eg. water hole that only has water at certain times of year.
When creating categories: Ask “Can this be returned to and found at the same location? Does it have persistent identity?” If yes, it’s a feature.
How about fishing or hunting spots. They might change over time - so you can return to them for a while (like you might be able to return to an oil well) but in a generational time frame they might change (as might an oil well).
Nesting spots - also might change. How to know if something is a permanent fixture or one off.
emporary vs. PermanentSection titled “Temporary vs. Permanent”
The title of Temporary vs. Permanent here is confusing with the examples below, which are both temporary, one just longer than the other. Just need a bit more clarity that both of these are considered temporary things. Is the Permanent referring to features? or is it that some of the impacts or changes might be permanent.
Examples:
can you add (for when this is public) "travelling the boundary of a territory to document limits" as I think that one might be a common use in future.
Indirect: “I found contaminated water here” (evidence of contamination impact)
how is this indirect - it is direct observation of impact
Perhaps this is a red herring to try to clarify as in practice it might be clear, but I think the direct/indirect is a challenging distinction.
Indirect: “I found animal tracks here” (evidence of fauna territory feature)
this could also be direct though - feature=animal pathway
New opportunities
Is it possible to have a "Possible disadvantages" with moving to this system (not things related to the switch itself, but if there are any disadvantages of having a universal system which emerge).
existence, occurrence, operation, consequence,
just simple comment to perhaps be consistent with the order in which things are listed - for when this is published to the public. First place they are listed is feature, activity, incident, impact - so perhaps mirror this throughout (sometimes above activity and incident are switched round, as in this case)
Keeping observations and entities separate lets raw data stay uncontroversial (“I saw dead fish here”) while the analytical work — drawing the spatial extent of the fish-mortality impact, deciding when it started, linking it to the upstream spill — happens at the entity layer. Evidence (the tag set used when an observation is indirect) is a modifier that describes how the observation relates to the entity, rather than naming a fifth entity typ
I get a bit lost here with the introduction of entities - my mind can kind of understand them but I can't understand how they would work in practice. At what point do entities get created and by whom - how do they appear within CoMapeo UI? (sorry, perhaps this is jumping ahead, but I think not understanding how a user would interact with them is blocking my understanding a bit).
they’re the changes left behind, and they can be remediated
just a note to adjust language here in the long term. they might be able to be remediated - might not.
Projects going their own way still work, but they fall back to generic exports and generic filters. Some projects will want to migrate to the shared schema as it stabilizes.
I'm curious about this migration. Do we think it will be possible to migrate the data from current category sets, by somehow adding the tags / adjusting the metadata to make them compatible and organizable with a new category set built with this schema? I think there are potentially lots of groups starting to use CoMapeo now for ongoing data collection who would like their data sets to be complete - otherwise it will be another big break in their data like Mapeo - CoMapeo is.
Cause and effect
Cause and effect is a very complex notion - and people can have very different ideas of this - the connections between events and causality. Does this matter in this model - does it allow for IPs to employ their own notions of causality or are we determining this in the model?
I guess more simply put my question is - does it matter if people using CoMapeo have different ideas of causality or is a certain world view baked into the taxonomy setup which would cause complications if people apply different understandings?
ImpactLasting consequencesIs this a change that could be remediated?
The language here is a bit confusing. if the definition is lasting consequences, but the question is to do with it being remediated , ie, not lasting (and the further notes on this item say that in most cases impacts can be remediated). I can't quickly think of better language, but this should be worked on more to avoid confusion for others. I think basically the concept is clear - although some impacts might be remediatable and others not.