GIS Application Participation Article Review

GIS Application Participation Article Review

Title: The Incident Map Symbology Story

Author:  Lt. Chris Rogers

Date created/posted:  4 May 2012

This article discusses the lack of a set of standardized symbols for mapping incidents concerning first responders such as Firefighters, Police, and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT’s).   The lack of standardization is experienced from the operation centers of large multi-agency incidents down to the individual first responder dealing with a small incident.  This issue is important for several reasons, safety of first responders and victims,  increases the speed in which information can be digested, and resulting in the ability in which important decisions can be made to mitigate potential hazardous situations before ever arriving on the scene of the incident, are to name but a few.  So, with these things in mind during December of 2010 a plan was put together to look at tactical mapping symbology for emergency services on both pre-incident and incident levels.  The focus was to see what was already available and then identify areas where additional work was needed.

First, a group comprised of first responders with GIS experience from all across North America and belonging to several agencies including the National Alliance for Public Safety GIS (NAPSG) Foundation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Science and Technology First Responders, and the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) was formed, to start some initial planning.   From this initial planning some things became apparent:

·         Incidents are complex, dynamic, and hard to map

·         Information concerning an incident can be collected before, during, and after the incident

·         Although most public safety agencies use a standard National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) approach to handling an incident, the nuances of the incident change between agencies

With all of this in mind the group set some goals, which included ideas like not re-inventing the wheel, keeping the symbols flexible and scalable, and trying to consider all hazards possible for the responder.   Before the group was to actually meet face to face, the leaders of the group, Lt Chris Rogers and Rebecca Harned assigned some homework. They were to research and identify any existing standard symbols and lessons learned and they were  given a mapping scenario to complete. The scenario was of a small structure fire and they were to create a map depicting hazards on the incident, features to help mitigate an incident, and the location of command functions.  Finally, in March of 2011, the group met in person in Seattle, Washington and for three days discussed their research and mapping projects.  

   At the conclusion of the meeting, the group decided that to improve Incident map symbology the following is required:

·         The need for guidelines not standards

·         Symbols should be broken into different categories (such as pre-incident, hazard, and incident command symbols)

·         The shape of the symbol should be defined by the category

·         Symbols must be able to be hand drawn. (For use in the field on paper maps)

·         Symbols cannot require a lot of training to understand

·         Symbols must be useable in routine business of a safety agency

While this list is by no means complete, it is a good starting point.  This subject is dynamic and will need to be refined over time. I do believe the goals of the project were met; however, one of the biggest problems is getting everyone onboard; some think change is a bad thing. Also getting this material out to the end users will take time and technology.  As more and more first responders buy into these guidelines, become more comfortable with the system, and see the results the system will grow exponentially and this will benefit all concerned.