到中国的东江源头村使用Balloon Mapping Kit

by karypun | over 7 years ago | 6 | 5

Hello,我想和大家分享我在中国江西使用Balloon Mapping Kit的经历。首先呢，这里是中国江西省的东南部，寻乌县三标乡的东江源村。东江源村位于东江的源头，而东江则是珠三角东岸众多城市的水源地，如广州、深圳、香港。就是说，我家的自来水很有可能就是从这一路流到我家的水龙头呢。

What I want to do

那么，这是我们第一次使用Balloon Mapping Kit。除了想体验把氦气球放到天空中拍摄图片的过程，我们在这里使用Balloon Mapping Kit，还有是希望了解东江源的实时地理概况，了解村庄和附近河流的情况，帮助我们更熟悉这个村庄。

My attempt and results

我们在制作氦气球的过程中发现了许多可能会影响氦气球升空的因素。 第一，如何绑气球使气球的承重最少，并且保证绳结不容易松开。 首先我们选择了不易断裂的麻绳。然后我们用了一种可以活动一边绳子的打结方法，这样即使气球活动，也能减少绳子的磨损。我们尽可能的减少打结的次数，因为何珊老师说每打一个结就会使气球的整体承重增加。最后我们把11个气球分别拴在一个橡胶环上，这样能保证即使一个气球飞走了，摄像机也不会立刻下坠到地面。 第二，用什么材料的气球才能使气球不容易漏气和破裂，并且能充入更多气体。 我们用了3个大橡胶气球和8个铝膜气球，因为橡胶气球的拉伸限度大，可以在一个气球中充入大量的氦气，尽可能使气球的浮力更大，而铝膜气球不容易漏气和破裂。

第三，选择什么位置来放气球，让摄像机能拍到大部分的村庄同时不会被电线或树枝干扰。 我们首先找到一个远离电线和树枝，靠近河流的地方，因为希望能拍摄一下河流的大概流向。然后第二次我们找到一个靠近村民家的地方，希望能拍摄村落的大概分布情况。

最后，可能是因为气球在升空的过程中一直在漏气，所以只上升到大概600米的高度。 不过我们也拍摄到我们所需要的图像了，哈哈给大家看看我们制作的MapKnitter：

然后呢，从这次拍摄和制作地图过程中，我们发现了原来位于村子旁的这条河流在2015年的时候还是一条土河，河流是在今年才变成我们现在所看到的样子。 Google Earth上显示的地图:

我们所拍摄到的河流：

其实，源头区的人们正在逐步改变他们祖祖辈辈一直以来的生活方式。过去，这里的人们靠山吃山，但近年来，因环保政策的实施，为了保障珠江三角洲居民和香港同胞能喝上安全的饮用水，东江源村的传统让步于水源保护。村民们开始改变自己以往的耕作方式，政府和村委会也向村民宣传环保，保护水源的意识，甚至有的村民已经开始经济转型，从其他产业来增加自己的收入来源。 我们希望，未来的某一天，东江源村这个地方能做到人与环境的和谐统一。

Questions and next steps

那么，在使用Balloon Mapping Kit的过程中，我们觉得最限制氦气球升空的因素就是，气球的拉伸限度不够大，无法在同样的重量下充入更多的氦气，还有就是气球比较容易漏气，这也是我们无法把气球升到更高的原因。

Why I'm interested

可能PublicLab和Balloon Mapping Kit在中国只有极少数人知道。所以我们希望能通过这次航拍来向身边的人宣传PublicLab和气球航拍,让大家都可以自主的了解自己的生活环境。并且，我们希望能通过这次实践来了解如何使用Balloon Mapping Kit。

这是我们所有人的合照：

Read more Follow

blog barnstar:basic

Public Lab Code of Conduct

by Shannon with klie , liz , nshapiro , thegreencommunitygarden | almost 8 years ago | 2 | 6

Update 9/2016, the Code of Conduct is live at this link: https://publiclab.org/conduct

Last year we celebrated our 5th anniversary as a thriving, growing community of people from numerous backgrounds. Many of us met for the first time through Public Lab, have found collaborators and people to discuss a range of topics with, and some of us have had the opportunity to connect with one another in person through Public Lab and non-Public Lab events. Public Lab has always been a friendly community that attempts to welcome and include as many voices as are interested in joining the conversation. As we've grown in numbers though, it has become increasingly important to note the ways that we can maintain the important values that this group was born from.

During the 2015 Annual Barnraising, we tried out a new in-person structure where four members of the community-- Carla, Klie Kliebert, Nick Shapiro and myself (Shannon Dosemagen)-- acted as team facilitators. We were available to help facilitate conversations, make sure everyone felt welcome in the space and listen if someone wanted to sit and chat for a moment. Coming out of this gathering, we were happy that although facilitation was unnecessary during this event, knowing that the group and structure were available was well received by those in attendance. Over the last several months, we've expanded this initial event specific facilitation model into a Public Lab Code of Conduct, which will be adopted across the community. Interacting and making decisions with people who geographically span the globe and whose experiences are similarly as broad can be difficult to navigate - our goal with this document is to specify values that we as a community can reference, agree to and abide by.

We want everyone to not only have this important document, but to also be able to replicate the process. Through our many conversations, research and work sessions, we realized that writing a Code of Conduct was similar to other research that we do, so we're sharing below the journey along with the outcomes. We've included details, steps, and reference documents that describe our process (thus far), which we hope will help others who may be in need of a Code of Conduct for their group or organization. We continue to maintain that being open, learning together and offering space for questions and improvement is what makes our communities, research and work stronger.

Please take a look over the Code of Conduct (linked below), and add your comments or questions by July 15th. We'll be using it in the current form during the regional Val Verde Barnraising this weekend, but afterwards comments will be reviewed and incorporated and a final version released on July 20th.

---

The following section is written by @liz on our research and drafting process:

Document

Here is a link to the document in GoogleDrive. To add comments, please just request access and we'll grant it right away. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azLoPNGF7oo9WKmlj4n_bEcZWI2PMQpcf2Si8VXPZfs/edit

The core

We framed the very top of the document with language from in-person democratic space holding that emphasizes the combination of respect and responsibility. The sentiment of "for democracy to work for everybody..." as practiced by the Highlander Center for grassroots organizing and movement building in Appalachia / the South is described in the book by Miles Horton "The Long Haul: an autobiography". Also see http://highlandercenter.org/. We also drew from the Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing which was written in 1996 by forty people of color and European-American representatives who met in Jemez, New Mexico with an "intention of hammering out common understandings between participants from different cultures, politics and organizations." Carla added the clarifying points on dignity during interactions.

For the fundamentals, we looked to the Ada Initiative guide to writing Codes of Conduct (CoCs) https://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/, specifically these three points:

• List specific common behaviors that are not okay
• Include detailed directions for reporting violations
• Have a defined and documented complaint handling process

Over that, we added a heavy overlay of JoyConf consent and empathy culture: https://github.com/maitria/code-of-welcome/blob/master/coc.md

Refinements

• After Geek Feminism http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ and Django https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/, we described the set of spaces that our community is active in and to which the CoC applies
• From @Mathew suggestion of http://stumptownsyndicate.org/about/guiding-principles/ we added a list of who the CoC applies to, seeking to level status
• @Klie designed the reporting process via anonymous online submission form, and converted the list of unwanted behaviors to "Do's and Don'ts", now updated for 2017: https://goo.gl/forms/Ma6lEkZ0TuE7D9FZ2
• @Kanarinka wrote in our existing practice of checking in before posting people on social media, clarifying media interactions with minors
• Potentially unique to Public Lab, we created a dual moderators group and facilitation group which cannot entirely be described by an online/offline dichotomy. The Addendum clarifies that staff of the non-profit are additionally bound by their Employment handbooks which meet federal and state laws.
• Generally, a lot of solid and clarifying editing by Nick, Shannon, Klie, Carla and Public Lab staffers, and the organizers.

Where this doc will live or be linked to:

• on https://publiclab.org/conduct
• /signup form (link, checkbox, force readthrough)
• check with ppl who are already signed up (pop-up?)
• in the standard footer that's on all websites
• as a link in the dropdown menu page "Get Involved" (FYI this generally needs updating)
• make a new section called "Core Values" on the "About Public Lab" page
• on github repos (as fulltext)
• on comment / research note forms (like how we ask again about open sourcing)
• a "how to print & post this at an event" thing, and also as a single slide to put into multi-day event kickoff decks
• on event invitations, letting people know this Code of Conduct will be in effect

Read more Follow

blog with:thegreencommunitygarden with:liz with:nshapiro

Documenting Runoff with Photography

by mlamadrid with gretchengehrke | almost 8 years ago | 0 | 0

Article by Gretchen Gehrke for Community Science Forum: Sand-Frac Issue.

Photo documentation is among the most actionable types of community-collected data. County and state environmental permit enforcement agents in Wisconsin and other states have said that photographs of river fouling are useful evidence for documenting permit violations. The most actionable photographs for permit enforcement demonstrate the source of the runoff, duration of the event, and the visible extent of the fouling.

Sand mines and processing plants must comply with Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit WI-0046515, and therefore are not authorized to directly discharge wastewater, including that from settling ponds or dust suppression spraying, into surface waters. Discharges from a mine must have less than 40 mg/L total suspended solids. Total suspended solids (TSS) are any solids in waterbody that can be caught on a filter. If there is a visible plume of muddy water in a stream, it could easily have 400 mg/L TSS, 10-times higher than allowed. As a proxy for TSS, turbidity can be measured. Turbidity is the cloudiness of water, measured by the amount of light scattered by suspended particles. The more suspended particles there are, the more light will be scattered and the water will appear cloudy, or ‘turbid.’

Time lapse photography of streams, where a weatherized camera is placed near a stream and takes photos at regular intervals, could automatically capture actionable evidence of turbid runoff events during the day. A time series showing the river before, during, and after the event can assist enforcement agents in estimating the total volume of the discharge. Coupled with an in-stream turbidity meter, the timing of runoff events could be easily identified and selected from the time lapse camera’s image series. A turbidity meter can also record evidence of runoff events occurring at night. Public Lab’s community is developing a low-cost turbidity meter for this purpose. Time lapse functionality is built in to a variety of “trail cams” and other emerging small cameras, such as the Mobius Point and Shoot.

Look for more information and an example demonstrating the impact of community photo documentation in the next issue of the Community Science Forum! Read more about the process online at: https://publiclab.org/n/12570

_Photo credit: Bill Hughes _

Read more Follow

wisconsin blog frac-sand with:gretchengehrke

Local Knowledge and Aerial Imagery

by mlamadrid with marlokeno | almost 8 years ago | 0 | 1

Article by Mary Kenosian for Community Science Forum: Sand-Frac Issue

Mines are hard to map from the air without someone who has detailed local knowledge. From the ground, you can hardly see them behind the berms. The distinguishing features in the air are much, much different than the ground reality. From the road, the view gives no idea of the vast area of gouged out earth.

The first photo was captured in a flight I did back in June, 2012 with Kenny Schmitt, a local farmer who knows the land in Chippewa County thoroughly. This is the Howard mine that at the time was owned by EOG. We went over the photos together afterwards to identify them, and figure out the point of view. This photos is of the mine facing NW. What this photo doesn’t capture is the depth of this mine, it has at least a 75’ relief.

This photo is from August, 2013, of the Badger Mine in Blair, Trempealeau County WI. Paul Winey, another local resident who knows the area well, joined me on this flight. He had a list of mines with GPS coordinates on a spreadsheet. I relied on his identification, double-checking with Google Earth. We synchronized time, and he recorded which minutes were over which mine. Using his chronology, I matched the photo time in the EXIF data with the mine. The Badger Mine is a huge amoeba shape with many pseudopods, each leveling a hill in excess of 1000’ elevation. I checked that on Google terrain from google maps.

_Image from June, 2012 with Kenny Schmitt. _

Image captured on August, 2013, of the Badger Mine in Blair.

Read more Follow

wisconsin blog frac-sand parent:frac-sand

Using Photographs in Fighting Mining Companies

by mlamadrid | almost 8 years ago | 1 | 2

Article by Forest Jahnke, from Crawford Stewardship Project for Community Science Forum: Sand-Frac Issue

On a hot August day in Southwest Wisconsin, four industrial silica sand mining permits sat on the table in front of the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway Board, and in front of that, over 200 concerned citizens packed the hearing room, the majority speaking passionately in opposition to the proposal.

Pattison Sand Company wanted to mine within the Riverway and was making the case that the Board had no option but to approve the permits under a loophole in Riverway law that considers all non-metallic mining the same as a small gravel pit for local use, no matter what the size. Pattison Sand asserted that the permits must be approved as, according to the studies they had done, the mine would be invisible from the river during leaf-on conditions, and therefore the Board had no basis to deny the permits.

However, an easel strategically placed by Crawford Stewardship Project in plain view of the Riverway Board held an image that told a very different story. As the mining company claimed to be invisible, the image silently refuted every word. From two miles across the Mississippi River valley, one could see the dust from a blast at Pattison’s Clayton Iowa mine billowing up in a plume and obscuring the horizon. After much debate and a recommendation from the Executive Director that they had no choice but to approve, the board stood their ground and denied the permits, earning applause and cheers from the crowd.

_Photo Credit: Kathy Kachel, August, 2013 _

Read more Follow

wisconsin blog frac-sand stories

Visual reporting on air quality: EPA method 9

by mlamadrid with stevie | almost 8 years ago | 2 | 0

Article by Stevie Lewis for Community Science Forum: Sand-Frac Issue.

One method groups are considering for monitoring sand mining and reclamation is called EPA Method 9, Visible Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources. This allows individuals to use visual assessment to monitor and report facilities’ emissions that obscure air’s transparency or line of sight. This lack of transparency is called opacity. Monitoring consists of taking 24 visual observations over six minutes and averaging the results. If the visual opacity is higher than the regulated limit for a certain percentage of that time, the site would be in violation. EPA Method 9 violations warrant an enforcement response.

According to Wisconsin’s Administrative Code NR 415.076, “emissions from activities not associated with processing equipment, including but not limited to roads, other areas used by haul trucks, storage piles and drilling, shall be controlled so that visible emissions do not exceed 5% opacity at the source.” If you see dust in the air, visible emissions are likely above 10% opacity. To maintain certification for Method 9 reporting, people must pass the field certification test every 6 months. EPA Method 22 is the same as Method 9 except it can be conducted by uncertified observers, although familiarity with Method 9 training materials is suggested. Method 9 carries more weight for reporting and prompting enforcement.

Image credit: Mary Kenosian, 11/05/2011 at Superior Silica Sands, town of Cooks Valley, Chippewa County.

Read more Follow

blog frac-sand with:stevie parent:frac-sand