Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269105124

Howparticipatorymappingcandrivecommunityempowerment-AcasestudyofKoffiekraal,SouthAfrica

ARTICLEinTHESOUTHAFRICANGEOGRAPHICALJOURNAL,BEINGARECORDOFTHEPROCEEDINGSOFTHESOUTHAFRICANGEOGRAPHICALSOCIETY·JUNE2014

ImpactFactor:0.65·DOI:10.1080/03736245.2014.924866

CITATIONS

3

READS

44

1AUTHOR:

JiriPanek

PalackýUniversityofOlomouc

25PUBLICATIONS18CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:JiriPanek

Retrievedon:07January2016

This article was downloaded by: [Knihovna Univerzity Palackeho], [Jiri Panek]On: 23 June 2014, At: 01:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

South African Geographical JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsag20

How participatory mapping can drivecommunity empowerment – a casestudy of Koffiekraal, South AfricaJiri Panekab

a Department of Development Studies, Faculty of Science, PalackyUniversity, Olomouc, Czech Republicb Department of Geography, University of South Africa,Johannesburg, South AfricaPublished online: 17 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Jiri Panek (2014): How participatory mapping can drive communityempowerment – a case study of Koffiekraal, South Africa, South African Geographical Journal, DOI:10.1080/03736245.2014.924866

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2014.924866

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

How participatory mapping can drive community empowerment – acase study of Koffiekraal, South Africa

Jiri Paneka,b*

aDepartment of Development Studies, Faculty of Science, Palacky University, Olomouc, CzechRepublic; bDepartment of Geography, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa

Maps were historically used to govern cities, states and nations, to support colonial andarmy operations and to maintain the superior position of those with power. Participatorymapping and community empowerment are new trends in the development discoursethat allow local communities to becomepart of the power structures and influencewhat ismapped and what is on the map.Open-source and collaborative mapping projects such as OpenStreetMap (OSM) are

designed to support community empowerment and to ensure that high-quality bias-freedata are available to everyone regardless of their origin, social status and positionwithin the power structure. In this paper, I will describe the main advantages anddisadvantages of the OSM and Google Map Maker for participatory mapping. Second,I will use the example of Koffiekraal village in the North-West province, South Africa,to analyse coverage and data quality of two different data sets. Third, I will discuss apossible community project based on the spatial information gathered through theprocess of participatory mapping organized in Koffiekraal in the previous projects.

Keywords: participatory GIS; OpenStreetMap; Google Map Maker; local spatialknowledge; rural development

1. Introduction

Historically maps have been used as weapons of imperialism (Harley, 1988), yet nations

and states are not physical features of the landscape; they are human constructs (Chapin,

Lamb, & Threlkeld, 2005). Cartography used to be called ‘the science of princes’, used by

governments and elites to stake claim to valuable land and resources, a science of which

the indigenous peoples have been the most common victims (Chapin et al., 2005). But

there is more to this than merely drawing of boundaries for practical political or military

reasons. Maps were used to legitimize the reality of conquest and empire by helping myths

which assisted in the maintenance of the territorial status quo (Harley, 1988). During the

last three decades, an enormous technology boom has impacted all areas of geoscience.

With the democratization of cartography (Rød, Ormeling, & Van Elzakker, 2001) as well

as geographic information systems (GIS) (Butler, 2006), new approaches have emerged,

bringing social dimension into cartography and GIS. These new approaches were

variously labelled as critical cartography (Crampton, 2011; Crampton & Krygier, 2005),

collaborative mapping (Simao, Densham, & Haklay, 2009; Walker et al., 2002), bottom-

up GIS (Talen, 2000) and participatory or public participation GIS (Osha &Weiner, 2006;

Pickles, 1995; Sheppard, 1995). For a detailed historical review about participatory

approaches in geosciences, see Schuurman (2000), Dunn (2007) and Sieber (2006).

q 2014 Society of South African Geographers

*Email: jirkapanek@gmail.com

South African Geographical Journal, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2014.924866

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

Any participatory mapping project, however, is only as good as local policy, as local

politicians are important players in deciding about what is mapped and what is not (Abbot

et al., 1998). If the local government or elderly leaders do not support the community

mapping project, you most probably will not be able to achieve any results. In most cases,

the ethical agreement with the local community and its representatives is a crucial part of

the preparation work. With the rise of aerial photographic coverage and Google Street

View availability, the question of ethics with respect to spatial data is very timely, too

(Blatt, 2012; Crampton, 1995).

The main aim of this paper is to compare OpenStreetMap (OSM) and Google Map

Maker in participatory mapping projects. Furthermore, it will focus on presenting research

conducted in the Koffiekraal village, located in the North-West province of South Africa.

The research consisted of a Community Assets Mapping Programme (CAMP) organized

by the non-governmental organization (NGO) Greater Rustenburg Community

Foundation (GRCF) in collaboration with the Department of Geography at the University

of South Africa. The second part of the research was participatory mapping organized with

selected community members and school children in order to create the spatial

representation of the village at the OSM platform. The third part was an analysis of the

spatial coverage of Koffiekraal at the main online map platforms Google Maps and OSM.

The analysis was conducted to suggest possible uses for new spatial data gathered in a

participatory way and for the profit of the local community.

2. Methodology

As the research has several sub-goals, it is necessary to describe the methodology for each

specific goal.

. Main advantages and disadvantages of the OSM and Google Map Maker for

participatory mapping.

A comparison of these mapping services was based on the work of Panek (2013),

where the main conclusion was that in terms of providing a comprehensive and

accurate mapping resource, OSM has many positive and negative characteristics.

The coverage and accuracy of OSM are loosely connected with the number of

volunteers mapping a given area and the position of the mapping locations. As stated

in Haklay (2010), there is evidence to suggest that there exist ‘areas where nobody

wants to map.’ If this is a widespread problem in OSM, it represents a significant

obstacle to improving accuracy and coverage. This is an area where GoogleMaps, as

well as other commercial mapping services, have a distinct advantage (Ciepluch,

Jacob, Mooney, & Winstanley, 2010). Any discussion of participatory mapping has

to consider Tobler’s first law of geography, ‘Everything is related to everything else,

but near things are more related than distant things’ (Tobler, 1970). Another ‘law’ to

consider is that bigger things are more important than smaller things. Therefore,

small/distant/rural areas are usually less covered than major cities.

. Analysis of coverage and data quality of two different data sets (Google Maps and

OSM).

The analysis of the spatial and attribute data coverage was done mainly through

Geofabrik tool Map Compare (Geofabrik Tools, 2012), which allows users to

compare two data sets in two parallel windows (Figure 1). Users are free to choose

Google Maps, Bing Maps and OSM layers. BBBikeMap Compare application

(BBBike.org, 2013) offers up to eight maps in one window and users can choose

2 J. Panek

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

from OSM, Google Maps, Bing Maps, Nokia Maps, Esri Maps, Yahoo Maps, Waze

Maps and others.

. Possible community projects based on the spatial information gathered through the

process of participatory mapping.

During the operation of the project Roots Driven Rural Development in

Koffiekraal (Panek & Vlok, 2013), one of the aims was to map the current

communal water-points and to suggest the ideal spot for new water-points. Maps

used for the analysis came from the process of participatory mapping in Koffiekraal

organized in 2012 (Vlok & Panek, 2012). The Roots Driven Rural Development

project is conducted in collaboration with a NGO, the GRCF, and communities in

the Bojanala Region of the North West Province, South Africa. Apart from striving

to facilitate development in the Bojanala region, the project also aims to further

develop and fine-tune a methodology of Community Asset Mapping Program

developed by the GRCF in order to conduct and steer roots-driven change for the

global south. The Water Supply and Sanitation Policy guideline (Department of

Water Affairs and Forestry, 1994) states that households should not travel more than

200m to fetch water. A report by the Port Elizabeth local government claims that

more than 90% of South Africans have access to water within 200m of their homes

(Thomas et al., 1999).

The GIS water-provision analysis was completed in ArcGIS 10.1 using data captured

during the participatory mapping process in Koffiekraal. According to the previous

research in the Koffiekraal village (Vlok & Panek, 2012), 66 communal water-points were

mapped and uploaded to the OSM. Besides the water-points, 68 private houses with

boreholes were identified and taken into account while processing the GIS analysis.

Figure 1. Difference of Koffiekraal map on six main mapping services on 26 June 2013.

South African Geographical Journal 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

In order to create the proper network analysis, 1174 road elements were created and

digitized based on the aerial photography of the area provided by the Chief Directorate:

National Geo-spatial Information, the national mapping agency of South Africa (Panek &

Van Heerden, 2013).

Methodologically the paper uses sources from the research by Chambers (1994, 2003,

2005, 2006, 2008), (Pickles, 1995) or (Craig, Weiner, & Harris, 2002).

3. OSM versus Google Map Maker for participatory mapping

The difference between data on the Google Maps and OSM is expressed not only in their

accuracy and coverage (Figure 1), but also in their type (Figures 2 and 3) and licence.

The OSM data changed their licensing from the Creative Commons license to the

Open Database Licence (ODbL) in September 2012 (OpenStreetMap Foundation, 2012) in

order to have more legal security and more specific license for databases rather than

creative works. The previous license allowed free access to all the map images and all the

underlying map data, such as points, lines and polygons. The current licence, on the other

hand, is focused more on the ability to share, modify and use a database freely while

maintaining the same freedom for others. The shift from map images to data (base) is clear

in the licensing, and it is also the main difference between OSM and Google Map Maker.

As is the case with other volunteered geographic information projects, the question of

accuracy for both spatial and attribute data remains a concern. The nature of the project,

with volunteers collecting spatial data from a variety of GPS units and onscreen digitising,

will undoubtedly lead to severe errors in some parts of the map. In OSM’s FAQ section

(OpenStreetMap, 2013), the web site responds to the question of data quality by saying

that

Figure 2. Difference of Koffiekraal map on OpenStreetMap and Google Maps on 26 June 2013.

4 J. Panek

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

OpenStreetMap is a free editable map of the whole world. It is made by people like you.Which means the database will always be subject to the whims, experimentation, and mistakesof the community; this is precisely OSM’s strength since, among other things, it allows ourdata to quickly accommodate changes in the physical world.

The quality of the volunteered geographic data can be doubtful, but based on the

Google Map Maker Source Data License Agreement (Google Inc., 2011), users do not

need to access the Map Maker Source Data through any technology or means other than

those designated by Google. On the other hand, they must not copy, translate, modify,

create a derivative work of, or publicly display any Map Maker Source Data or any part

thereof for any commercial or profit-making purpose and must not use the Map Maker

Source Data in a non-Google mapping service that provides similar functionality, which is

highly limiting for its users.

On 17 January 2012, theWorldBank (World Bank, 2012) announced an agreementwith

Google Inc. aimed at improving the ability of developing countries to access a web-based

Figure 3. Example of OpenStreetMap editing windows for line feature in Koffiekraal.

South African Geographical Journal 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

communitymapping tool and data in order to ensure bettermonitoring of public services and

to facilitate disaster and humanitarian response efforts. Most developing countries do not

have basic local data about where schools, hospitals orwater-points are located, and the data

they have are often outdated or incorrect. One way to collect this information is to ask local

citizens directly and crowdsource the locations of public infrastructure (WorldBank, 2012).

Under this agreement, Google will provide the World Bank and its partner

organizations, including governments and UN agencies, with access to Google Map

Maker’s underlying geospatial data, which includes detailed maps of more than 150

countries. Through this tool, citizens are able to directly participate in the creation of maps

by contributing their local spatial knowledge, and these additions are then reflected in

Google Maps and Google Earth. These maps include important locations such as schools,

hospitals, roads and water-points. In times of crisis, it is critical for relief workers to know

about them; this information can help NGOs, researchers and individual citizens to

effectively identify areas that might be in need of assistance (World Bank, 2012).

The original Google Map Maker Source Data License Agreement changed on

15 March 2012 after negotiations with the World Bank, which was not satisfied with the

commercialising of public data by Google. The new version of Terms of Service for

Google Map Maker states:

By submitting User Submissions to the Service, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable,worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate,publish, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute, and create derivative works of the UserSubmission. (Google Inc., 2012)

The main difference between the two agreements is that Google is no longer the owner

of the crowdsourced data, as it was stipulated in the previous license. On the other hand,

Google can still use community data as needed.

The Google agreement basically restricts users from using data with any tools that

Google Inc. does not approve of. It is understandable that global companies such as

Google are aiming to increase their position in the current digital world, and data

crowdsourcing is one way of achieving this goal.

Surprisingly, the World Bank has joined this venture despite its previous projects

supporting the Open Data community, for example, Kenya OpenData (2013) project,

funded by the World Bank in 2011.

After the World Bank announced the agreement, various bloggers and NGOs (Global

Integrity, 2012; Kelso’s Corner, 2012; Meier, 2012; Owen Abroad, 2012; TechPresident,

2012) criticized the World Bank for its decision and suggested alternative approaches,

utilising Ushahidi or OSM (Panek, 2013), because both of these projects are open-source

and therefore free to access and adapt when needed. As a result, the World Bank distanced

itself from the closed Google Maps Data policy (ReadWrite, 2012) and clarified its open

data policy by stating that ‘ . . . the World Bank only supports citizen-mapping efforts that

give users free access to the map data they create.’ The official statement further says that

. . . our agreement does not extend to supporting new citizen mapping activities or datacreation through the Google Map Maker platform. Therefore, when it comes to creating mapdata, we will work with a variety of other mapping platforms consistent with our developmentobjectives, terms of use and guiding principles around open data. (Inside the Web, 2012)

Licensing difference is not the only difference between Google Maps and OSM. The

two systems also differ in what data are actually visible on the map and what they

represent. The difference in data type is not quite visible when you are in the ‘map view,’

which is illustrated in Figure 2, showing the basic map window composition offered by

6 J. Panek

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

OSM and Google Maps, where users see only points, lines and polygons if the area is

mapped, but without the additional information about its features. The major difference

regarding the data type occurs when the user switches to the ‘edit view’ in OSM. Figure 3

shows features editing window for a line feature, specifically a road. In this case, one can

see not only a picture and/or a map, but also the data(base) behind it. The ability to see, edit

and download the data(base) makes OSM much more usable then Google Map Maker,

where users are limited to the Google Maps API.1

4. Why is Koffiekraal (not) on the map?

The Koffiekraal village (Figure 4) lies in the Bojanala Platinum District Municipality,

North-West Province of South Africa. Based on the ESKOM spot building count, there are

1157 households in Koffiekraal with an estimated population of 13,000, which accounts

for an estimated density of 8.6 people per household (SRK Consulting, 2009).

As Figure 1 shows, the Koffiekraal area is covered on four out of six main mapping

servers. When you zoom in you can see differences in coverage, especially when

comparing Google Maps and OSM (Figure 2). OSM includes points-of-interest such as

communal water-points and small shops as well as churches and pubs; lines such as

municipality borders and rivers, and polygons such as school areas, green areas,

graveyards and other areas that may not be visible on the map of Koffiekraal. All these

data were added to OSM after the participatory mapping in Koffiekraal organized in 2012

(Panek, 2013).

Koffiekraal is also fairly well covered on Google Maps, where main roads and rivers

are clearly visible on the map. One can see some attribute data in Google Map Maker

(Figure 5), but currently these data are not available to download, as South Africa is not

within the 64 countries unlocked for data download (Google Inc., 2013). The

unavailability of downloading spatial and attributive data from Google Maps for South

Africa means that OSM is currently the only mapping service online that allows users to

add, edit, download and modify the spatial information in the country.

Without the ability to download data, it is impossible to analyse the coverage and data

quality of the two different data sets (Google Maps and OSM) for Koffiekraal. The only

option is to use a visual comparison (Figures 1 and 2). Based on this visual analysis, it is

possible to assert that despite the fact that the coverage and quality of the data are subject

to change almost every day, OSM currently offers better coverage of Koffiekraal and

allows users to work with the relevant data freely and without restrictions.

5. What can be done with spatial information gathered in Koffiekraal?

It is estimated that 69%of those living in poverty in South Africa live in rural areas (Craigie,

2008). These areas have historically been disadvantaged in terms of access to basic services

such as water. To address this lack of access to services in rural areas, the post-1994

government has put in place policies that ensure access to water for all South Africans and

set standards with regard to the quantity and quality of water provision. One of theminimum

levels of water provisions (walking distance to the closest water-point, which should be no

more than 200m) stipulated in the White Paper on Water Supply and Sanitation Policy

(Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, 1994) is analysed below. This analysis is done

through a GIS analysis that incorporates participatory approaches to gathering data.

Since 1994, water provision in South Africa has shifted away from a demand-driven

water provision system to a supply-driven one. In 1994, only 43% of African populations

South African Geographical Journal 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

Figure 5. Example of Google Map Maker editing window for line feature in Koffiekraal.

Figure 4. Where is Koffiekraal respective to South Africa?

8 J. Panek

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

in South Africa had access to piped water distribution, while the percentage of access to

piped water distribution among Coloured, European and Indian populations was 95.4%,

99.9% and 100% access, respectively (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, 1994).

Water services were thus inaccessible to the majority of South Africans. For this reason,

water provision became central to national development policies such as the

Reconstruction and Development Plan (RDP).

Panek and Van Heerden (2013) used the service area analysis in ArcGIS 10.1 to

calculate that 749 households (65% of Koffiekraal) lie within the 200-m service area from

at least one communal water-point. From the results, it can be derived that 35% of

households in Koffiekraal (estimated to comprise 3500 inhabitants) live further than 200m

from the closest water-point. A detailed analysis can also show that there are vast

differences in the coverage of the water-points. In some service areas, there are up to 25

households relying on a single water-point. On average, there are 11 households per water-

point, which is about 100 people per water-point.

This article suggests using both the spatial distribution of communal water-points and

the service areas, calculated from the road network in Koffiekraal based on primary data

downloaded from the OSM, to plan where to build a new communal water-point. This

should lead to a more equal and sustainable distribution of water-points. Similarly to these

spatial operations, other data gathered during the CAMP mapping can be downloaded

from OSM and used in local planning and development.

6. Results

The participatory mapping in Koffiekraal (Panek & Vlok, 2013) and the subsequent

research (Panek & Van Heerden, 2013) showed that OSM has significant advantages over

Google Map Maker for community empowerment projects. Changes in the licensing of

Google Maps data after the agreement with the World Bank have had a positive impact on

the role of users working with Google Map Maker. However, there are still legal

limitations and restrictions behind the Google Map Maker Source Data License

Agreement. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of both Google Maps and

OSM is presented in Table 1.

7. Discussion

Both OSM and Google Maps data are worldwide and their crowdsourcing activities are

visible elsewhere, not just in Koffiekraal, South Africa. Maps of other places all over the

world are becoming more up-to-date and spatially accurate. Both OSM and Google Map

Maker are gaining their popularity due to mapping parties, organized by OSM

collaborators, and ‘mapathons,’ organized by Google. After the earthquake in Haiti in

2010, both services tried to improve their user-generated map coverage of Haiti, yet often

duplicated their efforts and enhanced barriers preventing them from combining data sets

generated within different software packages. This issue best illustrates the lack of

compatibility between OSM and Google’s Map Maker. Following the earthquake, people

utilized both services and started to trace out roads, hospitals and other sites of interest.

This incompatibility is clearly shown in the research by Haklay (Po Ve Sham – Muki

Haklay’s Personal Blog, 2010a, 2010b).

While the varying levels of information are not confusing, this example illustrates the

challenges that integrating crowdsourced data can pose. Not only should one be concerned

about quality and the ground-truth, but the issues of intellectual property and regulation

South African Geographical Journal 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

can also complicate such collaborative efforts. There will always be concerns about the

accuracy and quality of participatory mapping and crowdsourced data, but one should

never forget that even an inaccurate map is better than no map.

8. Conclusion

This article has presented different views on the usage of Google Maps and OSM to offer

examples of participatory data-mining services which use crowdsourcing to gather data

from the community of users worldwide. It has also discussed the difference between the

licensing standards of these two map service providers and has given a brief summary of

the agreement between Google Inc. and the World Bank, which has provided the World

Bank with access to Google Map Maker’s underlying geospatial data, including detailed

maps of more than 150 countries.

Finally, this article has discussed the Koffiekraal community mapping project and has

showed how data from participatory mapping and OSM can be used for community

empowerment and new community projects within the mapped area.

Both Google Maps and OSM have advantages and disadvantages; it follows that there

are individuals who advocate their use and those who are against it. The decision about

which service to use should be taken at the beginning of the whole participatory mapping

process, because such a decision affects how the data will be collected and used

afterwards.

The local community should have a SWOT analysis of both options (OSM and Google

Map Maker) with respect to local realities. Using GIS as a tool for community building

and community empowerment is an emerging practice. I would like to invite other

Table 1. Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Google Maps and OpenStreetMap.

Google Map Maker OpenStreetMap

AdvantagesSupport of the biggest IT company in theworld

Support of millions of users and volunteers

High-quality data coverage in most parts ofthe world

High-quality data coverage in most parts of theworld

Easy and user friendly editing tool New and user friendly editing tool (iD)Offers three different map views: normal,satellite and terrain

Whole world free data coverage

Data are up-to-dateIn most places more detailed then Google MapsNo technical or legal restrictionsMaps can be easily customized to fit the user’sneeds

DisadvantagesGoogle account needs to create its own map No guarantee of accuracyThe user needs to get the Google Maps APIkey to embed Google Maps on their site

Users need to have some IT skills to actively editOpenStreetMap

Copyright restrictions Still in progress – some areas may not be mappedthat well yet

Users cannot edit areas of the map ifsomething is incorrect. (except selectedcountries within the Map Maker)

10 J. Panek

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

practitioners to share their experiences with different mapping services and the challenges

they have faced during the participatory mapping process.

Based on the examples in this paper, I strongly believe that there are advantages in

using OSM for community mapping projects. Among these advantages is an open and free

access to the data created by the community as well as the licensing protection of the data.

This means that OSM data cannot be sold or used for commercial purposes due to the

ODBl licensing. The editing features and a large amount of supporting software, such as

Potlach2, JOSM and ArcGIS Editor for OSM, make the OSM project a very powerful tool

for community mapping, and the worldwide community of users is an example of a

crowdsourced library of experience and knowledge related to the tool.

Creating an own map within a community has an empowering effect, because

members of the community have the opportunity to think spatially about their environment

and literally put their community on the map. The process of creating the data triggers

feelings of belonging to the community and ownership of the process. With ownership

comes the onset of empowerment leading to sustainable development, driven and run by

the community itself (Vlok & Panek, 2012).

Note

1. Current version is Google Maps JavaScript API v3.

References

Abbot, J., Chambers, R., Dunn, C. E., Harris, T. M., de Merode, E. Porter, G., Townsend, J., &Weiner, D. (1998). Participatory GIS opportunity or oxymoron. PLA Notes – InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development, 33, 27–33.

BBBike.org. (2013). Map compare. Retrieved from http://mc.bbbike.org/mc/Blatt, A. J. (2012). Ethics and privacy issues in the use of GIS. Journal of Map & Geography

Libraries, 8, 80–84.Butler, D. (2006). Virtual globes: The web-wide world. Nature, 439, 776–778. Retrieved from

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7078/full/439776a.htmlChambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development,

22, 953–969.Chambers, R. (2003).Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology

Development Group.Chambers, R. (2005). Ideas for development. London: Earthscan LLC.Chambers, R. (2006). Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: Whose map?

Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? The Electronic Journalof Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25, 1–11.

Chambers, R. (2008). Revolutions in development inquiry. London: Earthscan.Chapin, M., Lamb, Z., & Threlkeld, B. (2005). Mapping indigenous lands. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 34, 619–638.Ciepluch, B., Jacob, R., Mooney, P., & Winstanley, A. (2010). Comparison of the accuracy of

OpenStreetMap for Ireland with Google Maps and Bing Maps. Proceedings of the 9thinternational symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in natural resources andenvironmental sciences. 20–23rd July (p. 337). Leicester: University of Leicester.

Craig, W. J., Weiner, D., & Harris, T. M. (2002). Community participation and geographicalinformation systems. In T. Harris, W. Craig, & D. Weiner (Eds.), (pp. 1–18). London: Taylor &Francis.

Craigie, D. (2008). GIS and integrated water resource management. PositionIT, Mar/Apr, (pp. 34–39). Retrieved from http://www.eepublishers.co.za/images/upload/GIS and integrated.pdf

Crampton, J. (1995). The Ethics of GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 22,84–89.

Crampton, J. (2011). Mapping: A critical introduction to cartography and GIS. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

South African Geographical Journal 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

Crampton, J., & Krygier, J. (2005). An introduction to critical cartography. ACME: An InternationalE-journal for Critical Geographies, 4, 11–33.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (1994).White paper: Water supply and sanitation policy(p. 38). Cape Town: Author.

Dunn, C. E. (2007). Participatory GIS a people’s GIS? Progress in Human Geography, 31, 616–637.Geofabrik Tools. (2012). Map compare. Retrieved from http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/Global Integrity. (2012). Why we’re worried about Google’s deal with the World Bank j Global

Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.globalintegrity.org/blog/google-world-bank-map-dealGoogle Inc. (2011). Google Map Maker source data license agreement. Retrieved from

https://services.google.com/fb/forms/mapmakerdatadownload/Google Inc. (2012). Google Map Maker terms of service. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/

mapmaker/mapfiles/s/terms_mapmaker.htmlGoogle Inc. (2013). Map Maker Data download. Retrieved from https://support.google.com/

mapmaker/answer/156852Haklay, M. (2010). How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of

OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environment and Planning. B: Planning &Design, 37, 682–703.

Harley, J. B. (1988). Maps, knowledge, and power. In D. Cosgrove & S. Daniels (Eds.), Theiconography of landscape (pp. 277–312). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

Inside the Web. (2012). Maps for open development. Retrieved from http://blogs.worldbank.org/insidetheweb/maps-for-open-development

Kelso’s Corner. (2012). When open data is not open: World Bank double speak on Google MapMaker? Retrieved from http://kelsocartography.com/blog/?p¼4215

Meier, P. (2012). Google Inc þ World Bank ¼ Empowering Citizen Cartographers? j iRevolutionon WordPress.com. Retrieved from http://irevolution.net/2012/01/20/google-inc-world-bank-empowering-citizen-cartographers/

Open Kenya. (2013). Open Kenya. Retrieved from https://opendata.go.ke/OpenStreetMap. (2013). FAQ – OpenStreetMap Wiki. Retrieved from https://wiki.openstreetmap.

org/wiki/FAQ#Why_is_the_data_sometimes_inconsistent.3FOpenStreetMap Foundation. (2012). OpenStreetMap data license is ODbL. Retrieved from

http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/09/12/openstreetmap-data-license-is-odbl/Osha, J., & Weiner, D. (2006). Participatory GIS – A paradigm shift in development? Directions

Magazine, 1–7.Owen Abroad. (2012). Don’t be evil (World Bank & Google edition). Retrieved from http://www.

owen.org/blog/5270Pickles, J. (1995).Ground truth: The social implications of geographic information systems (1st ed.).

New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Po Ve Sham – Muki Haklay’s Personal Blog. (2010a). Haiti – Further comparisons and the

usability of geographic information in emergency situations. Retrieved from http://povesham.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/haiti- – -further-comparisons-and-the-usability-of-geographic-information-in-emergency-situations/

Po Ve Sham – Muki Haklay’s Personal Blog. (2010b). Haiti – How can VGI help? Comparison ofOpenStreetMap and Google Map Maker. Retrieved from http://povesham.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/haiti-how-can-vgi-help-comparison-of-openstreetmap-and-google-map-maker/

Panek, J., & Vlok, C. (2013). Participatory mapping as a tool for community empowerment – A casestudy of community engagement in Koffiekraal, South Africa. In M. F. Buchroithner (Ed.), 26thInternational cartographic conference (p. 26). Dresden: International Cartographic Association.Retrieved from http://icaci.org/files/documents/ICC_proceedings/ICC2013/_extendedAbstract/969_abstract.pdf

Panek, J. (2013). The commercialisation of public data – How does participatory data-mining lookon a global scale? South African Journal of Geomatics, 2, 231–245.

Panek, J., & Van Heerden, S. (2013). Participatory GIS for water provision and community planning– Case study Koffiekraal, South Africa. 13th International multidisciplinary scientificgeoconference (Vol. 1, pp. 845–851). Albena, Bulgaria: Stef92 Technology Ltd.

ReadWrite. (2012).World Bank distances itself from closed Google Maps Data. Retrieved from http://readwrite.com/2012/03/20/world_bank_distances_itself_from_closed_google_map

Rød, J. K., Ormeling, F., & Van Elzakker, C. (2001). An agenda for democratising cartographicvisualisation. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 55, 38–41.

12 J. Panek

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014

Schuurman, N. (2000). Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s. Progress in HumanGeography, 24, 569–590.

Sheppard, E. (1995). GIS and Society: Towards a research agenda. Cartography and GeographicInformation Science, 22, 5–16.

Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review andframework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96, 491–507.

Simao, A., Densham, P. J., & Haklay, M. (2009). Web-based GIS for collaborative planning andpublic participation: An application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 90, 2027–2040.

SRK Consulting. (2009) (p. 14). Retrieved from http://www6.dwa.gov.za/iwrp/DSS/UserFiles/IWRP/Documents/Koffiekraal.pdf Development of a reconciliation strategy for all towns in theNorthern region.

Talen, E. (2000). Bottom-up GIS. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66, 279–294.TechPresident. (2012). Does a Google-World Bank deal on crowdsourcing ask too much of the

crowd? Retrieved from http://techpresident.com/news/21709/google-world-bank-deal-ask-too-much-crowd

Thomas, E. P., Seager, J. R., Viljoen, E., Potgieter, F., Rossouw, A., Tokota, B., McGranahan, G., &Kjellen, M. (1999). Household environment and health in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.Stockholm. Retrieved from http://www.mrc.ac.za/healthdevelop/householdpart1.pdf

Tobler, W. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. EconomicGeography, 46, 234–240.

Vlok, C., & Panek, J. (2012). CAMP for change in the Bojanala Region of North West Province.GISSA Ukubuzana 2012 conference proceedings. Johannesburg: GISSA.

Walker, D. H., Leitch, A. M., de Lai, R., Cottrell, A., Johnson, A. K. L., & Pullar, D. (2002). Acommunity-based and collaborative GIS joint venture in rural Australia. In W. J. Craig, T. M.Harris, & D. Weiner (Eds.), Community participation and geographic information systems(pp. 137–152). London: Taylor & Francis.

World Bank. (2012). World Bank and Google Announce Map Maker collaboration. Retrieved fromhttp://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/news/2012/01/17/world-bank-and-google-announce-map-maker-collaboration

South African Geographical Journal 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho],

[Ji

ri P

anek

] at

01:

45 2

3 Ju

ne 2

014