Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team
Works with mapping communities and partners to create and use open map data for humanitarian, resilience and public-service decisions.
90% of weighted axes reviewed. A mechanism hypothesis, not proven effectiveness or a donation recommendation.
Who this work enables
Tools & support for charities: Open mapping tools and shared data for humanitarian and civil-society implementers.
Humanity’s Checklist source match
Coordination — editorial, partial alignment.
Common geographic data can help humanitarian actors coordinate, a partial match rather than the checklist’s proposed collaborator-routing system.
Explicit checklist adoption: not verified. A mechanism match is not an affiliation, endorsement, evidence of effectiveness or a scoring bonus. Read the practice.
Focus classification: 2026-10-27. Based on the organization’s dated official sources below; earlier axis-review dates are unchanged.
Compare alternatives for a funder →
The proposed pathway
Open mapping infrastructure and local coordination
Six dimensions, with rationale
Structural depth
3 / 4Shared map data and coordination tools address recurring information constraints in planning and response; institutional behavior change remains to be tested.
Institutional reach
4 / 4The documented network spans regions and multiple sectors, including disaster response, public health and climate resilience.
Durability
2 / 4Data and mapping skills can persist, but maps become outdated and local capacity requires continued upkeep.
Scalability
4 / 4Open map data and shared digital tools can be reused across organizations at low marginal access cost; collecting and validating local data remains costly.
Funding additionality
UnreviewedUnknown: a current marginal funding gap, counterfactual and delivery capacity have not been audited.
Community agency
UnreviewedUnknown: local participation and regional hubs alone do not establish audited decision rights or control of budgets.
Evidence and selection
Organization reported; official program and tool descriptions
Illustrative inclusion to examine this mechanism. Inclusion is not an external recommendation or a verified comparative ranking.
A testable next question
Do partner decisions using the maps improve response or service access compared with plausible alternatives, while protecting sensitive communities and maintaining data quality?
Review confidence: Moderate for documented mechanism; low for systemic attribution. HOT's documented open-mapping and capacity-building approach; not all OpenStreetMap activity.
What remains uncertain
Mapped features and volunteer activity are not verified improvements in decisions or lives. Data quality, sensitive locations, representation and ongoing maintenance matter. HOT is distinct from the OpenStreetMap Foundation.
Sources to inspect
- HOT — programs, open mapping hubs and tools ↗
official · checked 2026-10-26
Propose a sourced correction →
Axis review: 2026-10-26 · weighting method v0.2 (2026-10-26) · Method, conflicts and coverage