Improve categories & questions for more use-cases

[gmaclennan]

The current categories and icons included by default in Mapeo were created a while ago before we had started piloting Mapeo with a wider group of users around the world. Different use-cases have highlighted other useful categories that would be good to include by default. The questions attached to each question (shown in the user interface as "additional details") are minimal right now ("name", "owner" etc.) and could also be modified to accommodate more user-cases.

It is important that these default categories do not become too complicated, such that it is confusing or off-putting for new users. They should be the minimum needed to collect data with Mapeo and be as general as possible. Similarly, answering multiple questions for any category can be tedious and complicated for users, so we should consider carefully before adding new fields. For users with more complex data collection needs, they can create custom categories and questions that can be as detailed as their needs are. Currently custom presets must be created manually by copying this repo and editing the data, and manually adding them to each phone with Mapeo. In the future we will create a preset editor which will make this process easier.

Here is the list of the categories (and linked fields) that are currently in this config:

• Airstrip: name
• Animal: name
• boundary: name
• Building: name
• Camp: name
• Clay: name
• Cave: name
• Community: name
• Fishing Site: name
• Gathering Site: name
• Hills: name
• House: name
• Lake: name
• Hunting Site: name
• Palm: name
• Path: name
• Plant: name
• Nuevo punto: name
• River: name
• Salt lick: name
• Stream: name
• Special site: name
• Farmland: name
• Threat: name
• Tree: name
• Waterfall: name

It would be useful to hear back from current Mapeo users which of these categories are useful, and if the current fields are useful, and which categories and fields they would like to be added.

@aliya-ryan @jencastrodoesstuff @arky @rudokemper

[rudokemper]

In terms of making the list more concise, we could have a field Natural Resource that could collate and generalize a few of these that are geography specific like Salt lick, Clay, or even Palm.

Hills (should be singular to be consistent) could be renamed Hill / mountain if there is space. Also, in places I've worked the distinction is generally made between Rapid and Waterfall, and rapids are far more common. So we could either split them, or perhaps rename to Rapid / waterfall. Also, what about Island?

Part of my brain wants to split Special site into some very common categories, like Historical site or Cultural site. But I understand the reasoning in it being difficult to differentiate even between those two, and therefore keeping it simple and just generally context-agnostic. (And perhaps these can be follow up questions, with an additional Other field?

How about just a general Other field at this level as well?

[jencastrodoesstuff]

I know these have evolved from specific use cases. Jungle was from territory mapping Ecuador. Monitoring configurations have been varying from context to context. We've even done stuff for IMW and a couple community and online workshops I've run. I think writing up user stories would help us write a few sets as a collection of generic configurations that users could pick from. Territory mapping, resource monitoring, threat / impact monitoring, conservation co-management come to mind. *Jen Castro*

…

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 1:33 PM Rudo Kemper ***@***.***> wrote: In terms of making the list more concise, we could have a field Natural Resource that could collate and generalize a few of these that are geography specific like Salt lick, Clay, or even Palm. Hills (should be singular to be consistent) could be renamed Hill / mountain if there is space. Also, in places I've worked the distinction is generally made between Rapid and Waterfall, and rapids are far more common. So we could either split them, or perhaps rename to Rapid / waterfall. Also, what about Island? Part of my brain wants to split Special site into some very common categories, like Historical site or Cultural site. But I understand the reasoning in it being difficult to differentiate even between those two, and therefore keeping it simple and just generally context-agnostic. (And perhaps these can be follow up questions, with an additional Other field? How about just a general Other field at this level as well? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#9 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5ZDXY2PX3B4TLHPVH3BYTSJH7PHANCNFSM4SEW73VQ> .

[prustar]

All icons and categories should probably be contextualised for people, regionally, based upon ecosystem type, and cultures. For instance there is a significant difference in types of farmland in Southeast Asia which can distinguish between mainland cultural practices and indigenous cultures so the generic category isn't sufficient, as there are distinct management practices associated here which in tern reflects knowledge that can be sovereign to an indigenous group.

Another important category is plant, endemism was raised as a requirement and this has specific bearing upon specific medicinal species that could be endemic to a region. If communities are able to record these as such then they are more likely able to challenge any commercial use of the plant by outsiders for profits.

Sub-categories for threats also if this hasn't already been raised.

[aliya-ryan]

Thanks @gmaclennan for starting this thread - adjusting/suggesting improvements to the default categories has been on my list since July at least... I initially thought that we could / should do a really comprehensive, quite indepth review, maybe hire someone who had experience in participatory community mapping to look at case-studies from around the world, talk to people and users and mappers and try and collaboratively whittle us up or down to a more useful list or lists.

However when I discussed this one piece of advice which convinced me against this as a first step, was that maybe it was something better to do initially by making small tweaks here and there, over time, and that making it 'good enough' for the current and currently immediately anticipated users, might be better than investing lots of time and resources in something.

It is definitely something we want to improve as part of Mapeo's general development, and specifically for the EDT launch - but I'm still not sure on the best way to go about this. We don't want to create something too complex initially, as simplifying things later if we get it very wrong (both reducing categories and changing questions) will be much harder than adding complexity. I have the list of suggested additions that @arky sent us a few months ago for SE Asia use-cases, and also we have a list which combines a range of mapping and monitoring needs from 6 different indigenous or of Afrocolombian origin in Peru/Colombia who participated in a joint training last year, in addition to the list @jencastrodoesstuff mentions from the IMW two years ago, and then very specific lists developed and used by current partners.

Maybe after gathering thoughts on here we can discuss a plan / method for at least the first step in what to do about this at one of our EDT meetings? We may have enough info and input to make a better set for now, which could then be consulted with known and new users of Mapeo to further refine it.

[arky]

I have the list of suggested additions that @arky sent us a few months ago for SE Asia use-cases, and also we have a list which combines a range of mapping and monitoring needs from 6 different indigenous or of Afrocolombian origin in Peru/Colombia who participated in a joint training last year, in addition to the list @jencastrodoesstuff mentions from the IMW two years ago, and then very specific lists developed and used by current partners.

The list of suggestion I shared last year was prepared by @saowalakj during her interactions with local partners in Thailand. She has recently worked with local partners to create an updated version. I think she will share the updated list once it is translated into English language.

[gmaclennan]

Thanks for all the input here. I think there are two issues at stake:

1. Customizing icons and categories for different contexts
2. Default categories and icons that work for as many contexts as possible without customization.

For (1) we currently support users creating a custom config and loading it into the app, however the process needs better documentation and is quite technical. Solutions for this that will require designer and developer time and resources include:

• A category and icon editor, including a form designer for designing questions associated with each category.
• Some kind of "category library" included in the app, so that the user can select pre-designed categories and icons as a "customization lite".

Disussions about these options and ideas for making (1) easier can take place here: digidem/mapeo-desktop#351

For this discussion we can focus on (2), and I think @aliya-ryan lays out a good plan for first steps, pending updates from @saowalakj, with refinement later based on user feedback.

[arky]

@rudokemper could you please share some of work you are doing on icons for oral storytelling and marking scared spiritual sites. I think we'll need those icon for our work here in SE. Asia in the coming months.

[arky]

@psubhashish Please kindly suggest any common icons and categories based on your experiences in the field with digital archiving of cultural artifacts, documentation of intangible cultural heritage and building OER resources in Southern Asia.

[rudokemper]

@arky so far, any icons or graphics that I've worked on for oral storytelling or storied / spiritual sites have been very specific to a particular community. But I know the Ethnographic Mapping Lab has some icons for these that can serve as a basis or reference point for a configuration: https://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/ethnographicmapping/resources/indigenous-mapping-icons/index.php

The communities that I've worked with tend to think of storied places first and foremost as something else, like former village, congregation site, rapid, granite mountain, etc. In other words, the kind of categories that would be found in a standard Mapeo configuration for territory mapping. You could opt to go that route, and then provide a text field question Does this place have a story?

By contrast, sacred site does tend to be thought of as a separate category.

[jencastrodoesstuff]

Hello all,
In an effort to gather input from those not here on Github, a survey was created to collect input on this topic to help identify a set of default configurations that come included in the app. We have to balance the (impossible) goal of universality with translatability, accessibility to less technical users, and a manageable amount of options that do not generate confusion.
We will surely end up creating some alternative sets of configurations that might have particular themes but for now, our priority is creating inclusive categories that will work for groups starting their projects with no technical support.

Please provide your feedback on the survey, and if possible, share it with the people who can offer valuable input.
Survey: Community collaboration on default categories
Thank you for taking time to make valuable contributions to this topic.

[arky]

@saowalakj, Do you think we could share this Survey: Community collaboration on default categories with our regional partners? Thanks