Introduction: Oxia Planum (OP) is the selected landing site for the ESA-Roscosmos ExoMars Programme’s 2022 mission (Figure 1). The descent module and landing platform, Kazachock, will transport the Rosalind Franklin Rover to OP. With the primary goal of searching for signs of past and present life on Mars, Rosalind Franklin will investigate the geochemical environment in the shallow subsurface [1].Figure 1: A) Locations of OP on (A) Mars and (B) in Arabia Terra. Phyllosilicate detections are in red [2]. Estimated/study landing ellipses are in yellow. -3000 m contour is shown in blue. Fluvial channels and sediment fan remnants are evident. C) Designation of mapping ‘Areas’. Oxia Planum: OP lies at the transition between the ancient terrain of Arabia Terra and Chryse Planitia (Figure 1). OP forms a shallow basin, open to the north, characterized by clay-bearing bedrock, and contains units from ~mid-Noachian to ~early-Amazonian in age [3, 4]. There have been at least two distinct phases of aqueous activity within the landing site area. A first phase during the mid-Noachian (estimated age is 4.0 Ga) resulted in ~100 m of layered clay-rich deposits. These comprise Mg/Fe smectites overlain by more Al-rich materials. After a substantial hiatus the second phase of aqueous activity included a fluviodeltaic system. This fluvial activity post-dates the clay-rich layered unit, and is associated with the younger set of channels in Coogoon Vallis, which feeds into the Oxia basin. There is abundant evidence for intense erosion across OP. There are isolated buttes, perhaps remnants of a once-extensive layer that superposed the clay-bearing unit, and a dark, mafic-rich, resistant unit of Amazonian age (

Introduction: Oxia Planum (OP) [1] is the selected landing site for the ExoMars Rosalind Franklin (RF) Rover. The goal of the reformulated ExoMars Rosalind Franklin mission, now in planning for launch in 2028, is to search for signs of past and present life and to characterize the water and geochemical environment in the subsurface as a function of depth. RF will accomplish this with its ‘Pasteur’ suite of scientific instruments, and a drilling and sampling subsystem to retrieve samples for analysis from up to 2 m depth [2].In preparation for the 2022 mission, The ExoMars science team undertook a geological mapping exercise of the landing site [3] prioritizing the 1-sigma area of the 2022 landing ellipses (Fig 1). The goal of this map is to develop a thorough understanding prior to rover operations of the OP landing site’s geography, stratigraphy, and geological history, and to provide testable hypotheses to facilitate interpretation of results and address the mission’s science objectives.Here we present the completed map of Oxia Planum, our interpretations of the major geological units, the leading hypotheses for some major units and implications for astrobiology goals of the mission. Figure 1: The compleated map sheet of the 1:25,000 scale landing site map (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17445647.2024.2302361 ) Progress: The compleat map (Figuer 1) is presented at a scale of 1:30,000 and includes 14 bedrock geological units in 6 groups, 6 overlay units and geomorphic linework.Interpretations and Hypotheses: This map is a detailed investigation into geological units of the proposed landing site; however these units are also representative of the wider Oxia Planum region. To formulate interpretation and hypothesis we incorporate these additional contextual observations and consider a range of possible interpretations and associated confidences presented in [4].Lower bedrock group (lBg; lBg1, lBg 2, lBg3) –materials with orange tone CaSSIS Near IR Panchromatic Blue channel images strongly associated with phyllosilicate spectral signatures. Also includes brighter ‘knobby’ materials, whether these are stratigraphically distinct layers or lateral variation is unclear. Contextual observation suggests the origin of these units may be the upper part of a lacustrine to alluvial succession [5] but it is also likely that the alteration predominantly occurred in situ [6, 7].Upper Bedrock group (uBg; uBg1, uBg2, uBg3) – uBg1 forms a thin resistant layer directly underlying Mm and oDm units. uBg2 and uBg3 host a boxwork of upstanding ridges associated with high relief areas such as scarps and large ridges. Regionally extensive, this unit crops out as a mantling layer, and contains exhumed fluvial channel bodies, so an origin related to fluvial and groundwater processes is possible, but this may be reworking of widespread volcanoclastic material.Mound material (Mm; hMm, rMm) – This unit group constitutes isolated hills (hMm) and ridges (rMm), which are part of a regional population. Mm predates the dark group and appears to be remnants of a ~100 m thick layer [8]. However, deposition and erosion mechanics for the unit are unresolved.Dark material (Dm; oDm iDm) – Thin (~1 m), rough units with lots of trapped regolith, are found at the top of the stratigraphy (oDm) on local topographic highs in regional topographic lows, or interbedded with the lBgBright patches (Bp; cfBp, cBp) – Light toned patches with concentric layers occur in (250m), but not infilled, craters.Crater materials (Cm; nCM, rCm, dCm) – Material relating to impact craters show degradation states varying from fresh dark ejecta (nCm) to degraded and overlain rims (dCm).Conclusions: The mapping effort is now completed. Since the resumption of the ExoMars mission we are working towards publication of the map, data and accompanying report to support science activities in preparation for the planned 2028 launch. Acknowledgments: We thank the CaSSIS and HiRISE teams for ongoing data collection. PF thanks UK Space Agency for funding (ST/W002736/1)References: [1] Fawdon, et al (2021) Journal of Maps, 17:2, 621-637, [2] Vago, J. et al., (2017) Astrobiology 17 (6–7), 471–510. [3] Sefton-Nash, E. et al., (2021) in LPSC 51, Abs.# 1947. [4] Fawdon P. in LPSC54 abs#2061 [5] Fawdon et al., 2022 JGRp 127, e2021JE007045 [6] Mandon et al, 2022 Astrobiology 2021 21:4, 464-480 [7] McNeil et al, LPSC54 abs#1252 [8] McNeil et al 2022 JGRp 127, e2022JE007246

The planetary community has access to a wealth of raw research data by using central data distribution platforms such as the Planetary Data System (PDS) [1], the Planetary Science Archive (PSA) [2] or specific mission archives. This research data becomes usable through its contents, i.e., the measurement, but also through the definition of extensive metadata descriptions without which raw data would be incomplete or even useless. Beyond these archives, the International Planetary Data Alliance (IPDA) is responsible for the maintenance of the quality and performance of data from space instruments [3]. Established by NASA and the planetary science community in 2014 the Mapping and Planetary Spatial Infrastructure Team (MAPSIT), originally named the Cartography Research Assessment Group (CRAG), takes care of the American objectives in space by ensuring the usage of planetary data for scientific and engineering communities [4]. Beside these, further efforts focus on e.g. data access system [e.g. 5], on interoperability [e.g. 6] and infrastructure topics [e.g. 7] related to mission data. When it comes to data products derived from these raw data, such as processed image products, terrain models, modelled spectral information, maps, diagrams, data tables etc., there is a considerable lack of central archives allowing the research community to store and find derived research-data products. To enable a healthy planetary research-product life cycle (cf. [8]), questions on re-usability of planetary research products need to be addressed and a coordination of organizational processes is required. This involves questions regarding individual entities dealing with the modification, review, or dissemination of data. In order to facilitate such processes, concepts and initiatives such as OPEN data principles [9] and FAIR data [10] have been developed, and infrastructure frameworks have been conceptualized and implemented. Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) have spawned in the 1990s due to growing amount of data and the need to make decisions based on reliably maintained data [11]. The SDI Directive INSPIRE of the European Commission represents one of the largest SDIs and was established 2007 on the European level, to enable sharing of environmental spatial information [12]. It builds on established standards such as the OGC [13] and ISO [14] for metadata and services, and serves with data models, vocabularies and other mainly technical specifications [15]. In the Earth sciences infrastructures have been developing organically over the years and adapted to ever growing needs. This approach differs from developments in the planetary sciences that we are currently witnessing, but yet it presents an extremely valuable base of knowledge and experience in order to avoid facing similar problems and deal with challenges right from the beginning. In order to learn from experiences in Earth observations and mapping, to be able to adopt structures into a provision and reuse of planetary research products, we aim to streamline the discussion within the planetary community. We here discuss the common planetary research-data life cycle and highlight, how the existing life cycle could be positively affected and enriched from a user- and process-centric view, by translating established SDI experience and workflows of INSPIRE into the planetary domain. We will discuss this process from using a discrete research data product: the map, due to its high level of abstraction and complexity. We will subsequently abstract this research product and transfer its characteristics to a wider range of different research product types. References: [1] Planetary Data System (PDS), 2020, https://pds.nasa.gov/ [2] Planetary Science Archive (PSA), 2020, https://archives.esac.esa.int/psa/#!Home%20View [3] International Planetary Data Alliance, IPDA, 2020, https://planetarydata.org/ [4] Mapping and Planetary Spatial Infrastructure Team (MAPSIT), 2020 https://www.lpi.usra.edu/mapsit/ [5] Erard, S. et al, 2018, VESPA: A community-driven Virtual Observatory in Planetary Science. PSS 150, doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2017.05.013 [6] Hare, T. et al, 2018, Interoperability in planetary research for geospatial data analysis, PSS 150, doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2017.04.004 [7] Laura, J. et al. 2017, Towards a Planetary Spatial Data Infrastructure, ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 6, 181, doi:10.3390/ijgi6060181 [8] Office of Information, Knowledge and Library Services, 2020, Research data life cycle, https://blogs.ntu.edu.sg/lib-datamanagement/data-lifecycle/ [9] OPEN Knowledge Foundation, 2020, Open Data Handbook. http://opendatahandbook.org/guide/en/ [10] Wilkinson, M. et al., 2016, The FAIR Guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18 [11] Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI), 2001, The SDI Cookbook version 1.1, Editor: D. Nebert, Technical Working Group Chair [12] INSPIRE as Knowledge Base 2020. https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/ [13] Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), 2020, https://www.iso.org/standards.html [14] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2020, https://www.iso.org/standards.html [15] INSPIRE, 2007, Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE)

Introduction: One essential part of NASA´s planetary geologic mapping program [1] is to coordinate and standardize the geological map process and products in planetary science. This important role is taken by the Astrogeology Team as USGS since the early sixties.Within the scope of an EU project called PLANetary MAPping (PLANMAP, [2]), which ended this year, initial steps to develop complementary expertise in the EU was done. To continue addressing the major scientific and technological challenges facing modern planetary science and strengthen Europe´s position and the forefront of space exploration a new pan-EU infrastructure, the EUROPLANET 2024 Research Infrastructure (EPN-2024-RI), is coordinating mapping efforts in the EU and with international partners. One component of this 4-year-project is the Geologic MApping of Planetary bodies (GMAP). This aims to serve the European planetary community through an infrastructure to foster, support, and sustain the production of planetary geological maps and related products following standard procedures [e.g., 3]). In order to do so, GMAP is directly building on the PLANMAP work [2], and several partners and institutions with previous experience in planetary geologic mapping are involved. That means a planetary scientist can produce a geological map or a derived higher-level product through GMAP Virtual Access (VA) with the help and advice of the GMAP partner institutions, who will provide base-maps and technical aid as part of the Joint Research Activity (JRA). The maps will provide support for ongoing and future planetary missions, training activities, and non-standard science-driven mapping projects, such as space resource mapping.GMAP – motivation and focus: The primary focus of GMAP is to streamline the processes which are involved in the production of geological and geomorphological maps of planetary surfaces. Here, we are mainly collecting existent approaches and related documents which handle the standardization of GIS-based mapping processes to enable the European community in creating cartographic products. The aim is to describe, develop, store, combine (!), access, update, revise, and finally, visualize scientific cartographic products. As soon as these steps can be handled in well-defined workflow and distributed among researchers and mappers, the highest possible level of homogenization, and thus standardization, is reached. This is the essential step to use these research products as a basis for broader studies. During the first year, coordination activities targeted the planning and the initial setup of digital infrastructure services that will be needed for supporting VA and JRA activities. The domain europlanet-gmap.eu was acquired by GMAP and will serve as the entry point for presenting the GMAP initiative, collecting most notable resources, for users’ access, for providing basic guidance for publishing new maps, request support and contribute to the overall project. The website is built on the same open source Content Management System (WordPress, [4]) already employed for the main Europlanet website, on https://europlanet-society.org. The GMAP data portal (see figure 1, [5]) and additional services and tools are being setup.GMAP – requirements and developments: In order to extract the requirements to support the European community in streamlining their planetary geological maps, a document was produced during the last year of JRA activities. The document contains state of the art information in this field and addresses the geologic mapping and cartographic aspects of the various Solar System bodies.Geologic process-specific and body-specific best practice and published case studies are included in [1]. The approaches for two-dimensional mapping and three-dimensional geologic mapping and modelling are introduced, as well as the range of non-standard map types that are envisaged within GMAP activities.In particular the following main topics are in development: 1) a mapping guide with essential information for the GIS-based mapping process, including CRS symbology, metadata, and naming conventions; 2) mapping templates for GIS-based mapping and for final map layout, as well as instructions about naming conventions [6].Mapping review directions are indicated, as well data sharing, distribution and discovery. Proposed standards, best practices, and tools are based on those existing, as well as on additional or new developments and adaptations [e.g. 7]. The document will be periodically updated. GMAP – summary and outlook: The development of the GMAP data portal [5] was initiated, based on existing developments from PLANMAP. The availability of GMAP products and underlying datasets is going to be FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable [8]), as also recommended by the VA Review Board (see also [9]), and building on the practices of PLANMAP [10], see also e.g. [11]). The use of existing tools by NASA and USGS such as Integrated Software for Imagers and Spectrometers (ISIS, [12]), and Ames Stereo Pipeline (ASP, [13]) will be promoted. Moreover, in addition to the community support by the GMAP VA, interaction with the community via OpenPlanetary [14] is also planned. All further information and current developments are available via [15] and [16].Acknowledgments: GMAP and Europlanet 2024 RI have received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 871149.References: [1] Astrogeology Team at USGS, https://www.usgs.gov/centers/astrogeology-science-center, [2] https://planmap.eu/, [3] Nass, et al., (2020) Standard definition Document 1st iteration, available online at https://www.europlanet-gmap.eu/about-gmap/deliverables, [4] https://de.wordpress.org/, [5] GMAP data portal, available online at https://data.europlanet-gmap.eu, [6] GMAP Consortium (2021) GMAP wiki documentation and service pages, available online at https://wiki.europlanet-gmap.eu/, [7] Penasa, L., et al. (2020) Europlanet Science Congress 2020, EPSC2020-1057, doi:10.5194/epsc2020-1057, 2020, [8] Wilkinson, M., et al. (2016) The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3, 160018, doi:org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18, [9] Raugh et al., (2020), VAs 1st year External Board Review report, available online at https://www.europlanet-society.org/europlanet-2024-ri/europlanet-2024-ri-deliverables/, [10] Brandt, C. H., et a., EGU General Assembly 2020, EGU2020-18839, doi: 10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-18839, [11] Luzzi, E., et al. (2020) JGR-Planets, 125, doi:10.1029/2019JE006341, [12] Gaddis, L., et al. (1997). An overview of the Integrated Software for Imaging Spectrometers (ISIS), in: Lunar and Planetary Science XXVIII. p. 1997, [13] Beyer, R. A., et al. (2018) Earth and Space Science, 5, 537-548, doi:10.1029/2018EA000409, [14] Manaud et al., (2019) EPSC-DPS Joint Meeting, EPSC Abstracts, Vol. 13, EPSC-DPS2019-1654-1, [15] https://wiki.europlanet-gmap.eu/bin/view/Main/Documentation/, [16] https://wiki.europlanet-gmap.eu/bin/view/Main/Services%20and%20tools/

This 1:30,000 scale geological map describes Oxia Planum, Mars, the landing site for the ExoMars Rosalind Franklin rover mission. The map represents our current understanding of bedrock units and their relationships prior to Rosalind Franklin's exploration of this location. The map details 15 bedrock units organised into 6 groups and 7 textural and surficial units. The bedrock units were identified using visible and near-infrared remote sensing datasets. The objectives of this map are (i) to identify where the most astrobiologically relevant rocks are likely to be found, (ii) to show where hypotheses about their geological context (within Oxia Planum and in the wider geological history of Mars) can be tested, (iii) to inform both the long-term (hundreds of metres to similar to 1 km) and the short-term (tens of metres) activity planning for rover exploration, and (iv) to allow the samples analysed by the rover to be interpreted within their regional geological context.

Geological maps have been historically a central part of the geological knowledge acquisition process: they are used to summarize all the relevant information of a site of interest and they provide the cornerstone for decision making, scientific discovery and three-dimensional geological modeling.Depending on the scope of the geological survey the cartography can depict different types of content: whether lithostratigrapy, chronostratigrapy, morphology, or other criteria are considered, the building blocks of a geological map is the geological unit, as the base element used to subdivide a region into geologically homogeneous patches of terrain. Digitized maps are normally represented within GIS software as polygonal layers.A common approach for mapping has been to directly draw polygons representing the different units on the map: although this approach appears the simplest one, it poses several issues in terms of topological consistency of resulting maps, especially when it comes to updating existing cartography. Furthermore, from a purely information science standpoint this representation, although useful for visualization, is inherently redundant, defining the same boundary geometry two times for each polygonal couples in contact.Editing polygonal layers is inherently problematic because vertex and edge correspondence between polygons in contact must be enforced by the operator. Although most GIS software implements appropriate tools (for editing and for topology validation) which can help in achieving error-free polygonal layers, the burden of using them is left to the operator and it is not enforced by the data format itself.A better solution for generating topologically-consistent geological maps consists in tracing the contacts separating the units, and then transforming them into polygonal layers (by using what is often known as a “polygonize” operation) for map finalization (see Figure 1).Figure 1: Generation of a consistent polygonal layer by polygonize operation, this can be performed by any GIS and is suggested as a good practice in geological map generation. A line layer is used for tracing the contacts between the different units and a point layer is also needed to define attributes for the polygons.This approach is also more similar to the geological reasoning that is performed when mapping, especially when remotely -sensed imagery is used (as in planetary mapping): the operator tries to identify the boundaries between different terrains rather than directly defining the area covered by the units themselves. This strategy hasve the clear benefit of making editing the map easier but, even when employed by the operator, the original layers (contact lines and points) are rarely or never distributed to the public, making it impossible to apply this method when updating already existing maps.In order to solve this problem we implemented a python module and a QGIS plugin called Mappy which is mostly based on already-existent modules as numpy (Oliphant 2006), geopandas (Jordahl et al. 2019), and topojson (Bostock 2017). Mappy implements the backwards transformation of the polygonize operation decomposing a polygonal layer into boundary lines and a point layer that contains the attributes of the original polygonal layer (the forward transform is also implemented). The input polygonal layer is first transformed into a topology-aware representation via topojson: first the intersection points are detected and then the polygons boundaries are split at those points, creating a list of arcs: each representing an unique portion of a contact line (Figure 2). Topojson representation can also account for rounding errors in the nodes coordinates and makes it possible to also consistently apply line-simplification methods (e.g. to reduce the number of nodes) while maintaining the original topology.Figure 2: The inverse operation of a "polygonize" operation as performed by mappy. a) the input polygonal layers with attributes; b) the topojson representation as list of arcs (each polygon is then just a list of arcs in the right order); c) the arcs are aggregated to create a representation more suitable for geological editing; d) point are positioned in the visual center of each polygon and the attributes are then transferred.Although being topologically sound, the topojson format of a polygonal layer is not the best suited representation for editing geological maps: given each line is split at the intersection points (Figure 2b) a contact might be split in a number of segments (i.e. when a contact separates one unit from several others) making it more difficult to edit the contact of a specific unit. For this reason, Mappy further processes the lines to aggregate several continuous arcs into a single polylines (Figure 2c).For each polygon an indicator point is then automatically computed to be in its visual center and the original attributes of the polygons are transferred to it. The points are placed by using the “polylabel” method provided by shapely module (Gillies and others 2007).The described approach has been then implemented in a standalone module that is also accessible from a QGIS plugin enabling easy transformation of any existing map into a line and points representations and vice-versa, therefore simplifying the process of editing and topology checking of existent geological maps.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by European Union’s Horizon 2020 under grant agreement No 776276- PLANMAP.References:Bostock, Mike, 2017 TopoJSON. URL: https://github.com/topojson/topojson-specification.Gillies, Sean, and others, 2007 Shapely: Manipulation and Analysis of Geometric Objects. toblerity.org. https://github.com/Toblerity/Shapely.Jordahl, Kelsey, Joris Van Den Bossche, Jacob Wasserman, et al., 2019 Geopandas/Geopandas: V0.4.1. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/record/2585849, accessed June 29, 2020.Oliphant, Travis, 2006 NumPy: A Guide to NumPy. https://www.numpy.org/.

Introduction: OpenPlanetary, or simply "OP", is an international non-profit organisation that promotes open research in the planetary science and exploration communities: sharing ideas and collaborating on planetary research and data analysis problems, new challenges, and opportunities [1].OpenPlanetary started in 2015 as a way for participants of the ESA’s Planetary GIS Workshop to stay connected and exchange information related to and beyond this workshop. It expanded further by playing a similar role for the second USGS-hosted Planetary Data Workshop (PDW) in 2017. OpenPlanetary has continued to support the biannual PDW and provides a more persistent forum for participants to highlight presented topics and discussions from the workshops.In 2018, we established OpenPlanetary as a non-profit organisation (Association under 1901 French Law, [2]) in order to provide us with a legal framework to sustainably fund our community framework, projects and activities, and to better serve the planetary science community as a whole. OpenPlanetary is governed by a Board of Directors, elected for two years, which (1) define the policy and general orientation, (2) initiate, endorse, lead, or contribute to the projects and activities, and (3) can make use of the funds of the Association for any endorsed project or activity; the Bureau contains a 3-person subset of the Board members (a president, treasurer, and secretary) and serves as the executive body of the Association.Mission: Our mission is to promote and facilitate the open practice of planetary science and data analysis for professionals and amateurs. We do so by organizing events and conducting collaborative projects aimed at creating scientific, technical and educational resources, tools and data accessible to all.Members and Membership: With currently 300+ members across the world, OpenPlanetary membership is free and open to research and education professionals: scientists, engineers, designers, teachers and students, space enthusiasts and citizen scientists [3]. Although the early membership had a strong representation in planetary surface and mapping sciences, OpenPlanetary has expanded and is intended to serve as an “umbrella” for all communities of planetary data and tool users, producers or providers across scientific disciplines, space missions or working groups.Collaboration Platform: Our collaboration platform mainly consists of fully-featured Slack and Github instances. OP members use OP Slack workspace to stay connected and have real-time discussions with other members [4], and are entitled to request admin rights to host and manage open source projects on OP Github organization [5].Online Forum: We provide a public online OP Forum for research professionals and amateurs across all planetary science disciplines and communities to find help, share and discuss data, tools and resources [6]. While OP Slack is considered for the more informal discussions, the OP Forum is intended to post Q/A and discussion ”gems'' from OP Slack, or any resources that would help a broader community (eg: a short tip, a handy how-to guide or a list of curated resources), and that would benefit from having a permanent web-presence and being discoverable by search engines.Data Cafés: Since 2017, we have organised Data Cafés at scientific conferences for people to meet, share, discuss and solve common challenges and issues related to planetary data handling and analysis. These events follow an "unconference" format allowing and encouraging anyone to propose a topic and lead a group activity (eg: demo, tutorial, hack), or simply to ask for help [7].Online Events: Unable to continue with the in-person Data Cafés in 2020, we started hosting virtual online events: (1) OPvCon in June 2020 was our first free virtual conference, scheduled in place of the cancelled Planetary Science Informatics and Data Analytics Conference (PSIDA). It consisted of lecture-length talks from invited speakers, networking opportunities, workshops and tutorials, and a hackathon [8], and (2) since March 2020, we have hosted weekly OP Lunch Talks to present and discuss technical topics of interest to the planetary science community [9]. Most of these events are recorded and made publicly available on YouTube. They now represent a substantial collection of high-quality informational resources and training videos on diverse topics related to planetary science [10].Community Projects: Our flagship project is OpenPlanetaryMap (OPM), an open planetary mapping and social platform and effort to foster planetary mapping and cartography on the web for all [11]. We also support PlanetaryPy, a community effort to develop a core package for planetary science in Python and foster interoperability between Python planetary science packages [12]. A number of other projects not strictly homed under the OP umbrella have arisen from collaborations fostered in OP Slack or during OP Lunch discussion sessions.Outlook: We held our first yearly OpenPlanetary General Assembly in December 2020 [13], during which a new Board of Directors was elected. Our main focus within the next couple of years is on (1) consolidating and expanding OP Lunch and other virtual activities, (2) increasing the usage and impact of the OP Forum for all communities (eg: Planetary Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) communities), and (3) identifying sustainable funding opportunities. References: [1] https://www.openplanetary.org, [2] https://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/associations/detail-annonce/associations_b/20180009/457, [3] https://www.openplanetary.org/join, [4] http://openplanetary.slack.com, [5] https://github.com/openplanetary, [6] https://forum.openplanetary.org [7] https://github.com/openplanetary/op-data-cafe, [8] https://www.openplanetary.org/vcon, [9] https://www.openplanetary.org/vlunch, [10] https://www.youtube.com/openplanetary, [11] https://www.openplanetary.org/opm, [12] https://planetarypy.org, [13] https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QfGzTT760DpTCFucCaOsOGFLY8Wyy1rE

The field of planetary mapping and cartography builds almost exclusively on remote-sensing data and can be defined by three distinct concepts: systematic imaging as performed through spacecraft surveying, reference mapping as performed through the compilation of reference maps, i.e., regional to global image and topographic maps, and thematic mapping, which aims at abstracting and contextualizing spatial information to generate complex thematic maps, such as geologic or geomorphologic maps. While thematic mapping represents the highest form of abstraction of information that is provided through systematic mapping, thematic mapping also provides scientific reasoning in support of systematic mapping and exploration through spatially contextualized knowledge. For the development of knowledge, it is paramount to manage and exploit the value of thematic maps as research products, and to design a reliable and transparent development process from the beginning of the mapping phase as there is almost no validation for thematic maps. A key element in accomplishing these objectives is well-designed structures and metadata which are maintained within spatial data infrastructures (SDI) and shared as a coordinated process in research data management through data models. In this contribution, we focus on the need to transfer planetary thematic maps into findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable (FAIR), as well as transparent research data assets to facilitate improved knowledge extraction and also to compensate for limitations caused by the lack of conventional validation options. We review the current status of planetary thematic mapping, and we discuss the principles and roles of mappers and publishers in the process of creating and stewarding digital planetary maps and associated data products. We then present and discuss a set of recommendations that are closely tied to the FAIR concepts in research data management to accomplish such tasks.

Introduction: ESA’s ExoMars rover will land in the Oxia Planum (OP) region [1,2], which was chosen for its ancient age, evidence for the sustained presence of water, the presence of layered deposits, and the potential for biosignature preservation [2]. While some of the geological characteristics have been studied in detail [3-5], other aspects are less well understood. In particular, it is unclear if the situation in OP is a unique one, or if the geologic setting is representative for Mars on a regional, or even a global scale. Specifically, the stratigraphic relationship of the geologic units in OP to the nearby ancient impact basin, Chryse Planitia, requires further study. For example, a »bathtub«-like ring of Fe/Mg-rich phyllosilicates around Chryse [6] may indicate that the phyllosilicates at OP reflect aqueous processes that operated in a specific context at basin-scale. To test the hypothesis that OP is representative for a circum-Chryse geologic setting, we selected a site in northern Xanthe Terra (XT) (~9-13.5°N/315-318.5°E; Fig. 1) to investigate key geologic features and compare them to OP. This site displays several characteristics similar to OP, making it a suitable reference site: The presence of phyllosilicates [7], the proximity to fluvial features [8-10], and the abundance of remnant buttes that are indicative of widespread erosional processes [11]. Here we present preliminary results of our mapping and geologic analysis. Preliminary Results and Discussion: The study area is approximately 225 × 190 km in size. The general elevation increases in height from north to south from approximately -2,960 m to -1,800 m. Both at OP and XT, the lowland-highland boundary is expressed as a gradual slope rather than a sharp topographic step. Figure 1: (A) THEMIS nighttime IR and (B) HRSC image mosaics of the study site in Xanthe Terra.In the northwestern study area, the Hypanis fan represents the arguably largest sedimentary fan deposit on Mars [8-10]. These deposits are finely layered and appear dark in THEMIS nighttime IR images (Fig. 1). Sedimentary fan deposits, while having a smaller extent, are also present in OP at the termination of the Coogoon Valles fluvial system [5,12,13]. Both the sedimentary deposits in XT [8-10] and OP [13] are thought to have a fluvial origin. Phyllosilicates are widespread in OP [4-6] and are the main target of the ExoMars rover. Apart from their spectral signature, they are also characterized by a bright THEMIS nighttime IR signature and a polygonised texture at HiRISE scale. A global-scale search for chemical alteration signatures revealed the presence of Fe/Mg phyllosilicates in northern XT, marginal to Chryse [4]. As in OP, the phyllosilicate-bearing plains appear bright in THEMIS nighttime IR images (Fig. 1). At least two different units are present in this region. The most widespread is a light and layered unit, which is partly eroded, exposing a darker material underneath (Fig. 2). NW – SE orientated small dunes and periodic bedrock ridges, a type of aeolian erosional landforms which is ubiquitous in the clay-bearing plains of OP [14], are present on top of the darker unit. HiRISE coverage of both units shows distinct polygonised textures. Several inverted craters are present within this two units. The material of these inverted craters differs from both units, and, therefore, represents the remnants of at least one further eroded unit. The phyllosilicate-bearing plains are overlain by a widespread unit, which seems to be present in most of the northern study area.Figure 2: (A) HRSC mosaic of the phyllosilicate-bearing plains. The erosional contact is shown in (B). (C) and (D) are HiRISE images of the lighter and darker unit, respectively.The rims of ancient filled craters are outlined by rings of mounds. The diameters of these mounds range from tens of meters to several kilometers. Their appearance is variable and resembles mesas, rounded knobs/buttes, and “bread-crust-like features” (Fig. 3). These mounds are increasing in height and abundance towards north, i.e. towards Chryse. A similar trend of height and abundance was also observed in OP [15]. However, the height of these mounds varies individually. Rounded buttes, for example, can be higher than mesas in their immediate neighborhood. Some mounds show a fine layering, and, in some cases, mounds stand on top of a finely layered basis. The mounds appear dark in THEMIS nighttime infrared images (Fig. 1). Similar mounds are present along the eastern highland boundary of Chryse [11]. The composition of the mounds and their erosional history are not yet clear. The low thermal inertia and the fine layering of some of the mounds, however, favor a sedimentary material. The timing of mound formation relative to other geological units is also still unknown since stratigraphic relationships between these units still seem conflicting. Figure 3: (A) Mapped mounds in the study area. Rounded buttes are shown in green and mesas in orange. (B) CTX and HiRISE images of the remnant mound types.Preliminary Conclusions: Northern XT and OP share various geological characteristics (e.g., sedimentary fans, phyllosilicates, remnant mounds) and a comparable location at the lowland-highland boundary at Chryse Planitia. These similarities enable a comparison between both sites and a testing of hypotheses related to the ExoMars rover landing site. References: [1] Vago, J. L. et al. (2015) Sol. Syst. Res., 49, 538–542. [2] Bridges, J. C. et al. (2018), LPS XLIX, Abstract #2177. [3] Vago, J. L. et al. (2017) Astrobiol., 17, 471–510. [4] Carter, J. et al., (2013) J. Geophys. Res., 118, 831–858. [5] Quantin-Nataf, C. et al. (2021) Astrobiol., 21, 994-1013. [6] Mandon, L. et al. (2021) Astrobiol., 21, 464-480. [7] Carter, J. et al. (2019) Ninth Int. Conf. Mars, Abstract #6175. [8] Hauber, E. et al. (2009) Planet. Space Sci., 57, 944–957. [9] Fawdon et al. (2018) EPSL, 500, 225–241. [10] Adler, J. B. et al. (2019) Icarus, 319, 885–908. [11] McNeil, J. et al. (2021) LPSC, 52, Abstract #2548. [12] Ivanov, M. A. et al. (2020) Sol. Syst. Res., 54, 1-14. [13] Molina, A. et al. (2017) Icarus, 293, 27-44. [14] Silvestro, S. et al. (2021) GRL), doi: 10.1029/2020GL091651. [15] McNeil, J. D. et al. (2020) LPSC, 51, Abstract #1948.

Introduction: ESA’s ExoMars rover will land in the Oxia Planum (OP) region [1,2], which was chosen for its ancient age, evidence for the sustained presence of water, the presence of layered deposits, and the potential for biosignature preservation [2]. While some of the geological characteristics have been studied in detail [3-5], other aspects are less well understood. In particular, it is unclear if the situation in OP is a unique one, or if the geologic setting is representative for Mars on a regional, or even a global scale. Specifically, the stratigraphic relationship of the geologic units in OP to the nearby ancient impact basin, Chryse Planitia, requires further study. For example, a »bathtub«-like ring of Fe/Mg-rich phyllosilicates around Chryse [6] may indicate that the phyllosilicates at OP reflect aqueous processes that operated in a specific context at basin-scale.  To test the hypothesis that OP is representative for a circum-Chryse geologic setting, we selected a site in northern Xanthe Terra (XT) (~9-13.5°N/315-318.5°E; Fig. 1) to investigate key geologic features and compare them to OP. This site displays several characteristics similar to OP, making it a suitable reference site: The presence of phyllosilicates [7], the proximity to fluvial features [8-10], and the abundance of remnant buttes that are indicative of widespread erosional processes [11]. Here we present preliminary results of our mapping and geologic analysis. Preliminary Results and Discussion: The study area is approximately 225 × 190 km in size. The general elevation increases in height from north to south from approximately -2,960 m to -1,800 m. Both at OP and XT, the lowland-highland boundary is expressed as a gradual slope rather than a sharp topographic step. Figure 1: (A) THEMIS nighttime IR and (B) HRSC image mosaics of the study site in Xanthe Terra.In the northwestern study area, the Hypanis fan represents the arguably largest sedimentary fan deposit on Mars [8-10]. These deposits are finely layered and appear dark in THEMIS nighttime IR images (Fig. 1). Sedimentary fan deposits, while having a smaller extent, are also present in OP at the termination of the Coogoon Valles fluvial system [5,12,13]. Both the sedimentary deposits in XT [8-10] and OP [13] are thought to have a fluvial origin. Phyllosilicates are widespread in OP [4-6] and are the main target of the ExoMars rover. Apart from their spectral signature, they are also characterized by a bright THEMIS nighttime IR signature and a polygonised texture at HiRISE scale. A global-scale search for chemical alteration signatures revealed the presence of Fe/Mg phyllosilicates in northern XT, marginal to Chryse [4]. As in OP, the phyllosilicate-bearing plains appear bright in THEMIS nighttime IR images (Fig. 1). At least two different units are present in this region. The most widespread is a light and layered unit, which is partly eroded, exposing a darker material underneath (Fig. 2). NW – SE orientated small dunes and periodic bedrock ridges, a type of aeolian erosional landforms which is ubiquitous in the clay-bearing plains of OP [14], are present on top of the darker unit. HiRISE coverage of both units shows distinct polygonised textures. Several inverted craters are present within this two units. The material of these inverted craters differs from both units, and, therefore, represents the remnants of at least one further eroded unit. The phyllosilicate-bearing plains are overlain by a widespread unit, which seems to be present in most of the northern study area.Figure 2: (A) HRSC mosaic of the phyllosilicate-bearing plains. The erosional contact is shown in (B). (C) and (D) are HiRISE images of the lighter and darker unit, respectively.The rims of ancient filled craters are outlined by rings of mounds. The diameters of these mounds range from tens of meters to several kilometers. Their appearance is variable and resembles mesas, rounded knobs/buttes, and “bread-crust-like features” (Fig. 3). These mounds are increasing in height and abundance towards north, i.e. towards Chryse. A similar trend of height and abundance was also observed in OP [15]. However, the height of these mounds varies individually. Rounded buttes, for example, can be higher than mesas in their immediate neighborhood. Some mounds show a fine layering, and, in some cases, mounds stand on top of a finely layered basis. The mounds appear dark in THEMIS nighttime infrared images (Fig. 1). Similar mounds are present along the eastern highland boundary of Chryse [11]. The composition of the mounds and their erosional history are not yet clear. The low thermal inertia and the fine layering of some of the mounds, however, favor a sedimentary material. The timing of mound formation relative to other geological units is also still unknown since stratigraphic relationships between these units still seem conflicting. Figure 3: (A) Mapped mounds in the study area. Rounded buttes are shown in green and mesas in orange. (B) CTX and HiRISE images of the remnant mound types.Preliminary Conclusions: Northern XT and OP share various geological characteristics (e.g., sedimentary fans, phyllosilicates, remnant mounds) and a comparable location at the lowland-highland boundary at Chryse Planitia. These similarities enable a comparison between both sites and a testing of hypotheses related to the ExoMars rover landing site. References:  [1] Vago, J. L. et al. (2015) Sol. Syst. Res., 49, 538–542. [2] Bridges, J. C. et al. (2018), LPS XLIX, Abstract #2177. [3] Vago, J. L. et al. (2017) Astrobiol., 17, 471–510. [4] Carter, J. et al., (2013) J. Geophys. Res., 118, 831–858. [5] Quantin-Nataf, C. et al. (2021) Astrobiol., 21, 994-1013. [6] Mandon, L. et al. (2021) Astrobiol., 21, 464-480. [7] Carter, J. et al. (2019) Ninth Int. Conf. Mars, Abstract #6175. [8] Hauber, E. et al. (2009) Planet. Space Sci., 57, 944–957. [9] Fawdon et al. (2018) EPSL, 500, 225–241. [10] Adler, J. B. et al. (2019) Icarus, 319, 885–908. [11] McNeil, J. et al. (2021) LPSC, 52, Abstract #2548. [12] Ivanov, M. A. et al. (2020) Sol. Syst. Res., 54, 1-14. [13] Molina, A. et al. (2017) Icarus, 293, 27-44. [14] Silvestro, S. et al. (2021) GRL), doi: 10.1029/2020GL091651. [15] McNeil, J. D. et al. (2020) LPSC, 51, Abstract #1948.

The quantity, quality, and type of available datasets on Mars have improved in the last couple of decades. Context Camera (CTX) (Malin et al., 2007) on board the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) provides a global coverage with an average resolution of 6 meters/pixel while the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) on board MRO (McEwen et al., 2007) allows up to 30 cm/pixel analyses at the local scale. These data allow at places also the DTM generation, but extensive topographic reconstructions at an average scale of 50 meters/pixel are possible using the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on board of ESA Mars Express (MEX) (Neukum et al., 2004). Moreover compositional constraints can be provided by the spectral data coming from Observatoire pour la Minéralogie, l’Eau, les Glaces, et l’Activité (OMEGA) on board MEX and from Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars (CRISM) on board the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) (Murchie et al., 2007). These relatively recent datasets coupled with the older datasets and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) provide an impressive suite of tools to develop meaningful planetary geological maps. In principle, these new data allow to add to the traditional geomorphological or chronostratigraphic mapping approaches, also a geological map approach somewhat akin to the one well-known on Earth, although, a ‘true’ geological map should be based on the lithological characters of the mapped units; using tone, texture, absence/presence of sedimentary structure, and, if possible, compositional hints to define the units, may represent an adequate ‘planetary perspective’, obviously in addition to the stratigraphic position within the succession. This map approach has the advantages to be relatively objective (and so potentially more useful for geological context analyses) and to represent the stratigraphic complexity within a region. This approach is complementary to the more interpretative (because it includes the processes/environments of formation of the different features) one of the geomorphological maps, which has the obvious advantage to describe the environments/processes active in the region. In the framework of the GMAP (Geologic MApping of Planetary bodies) project, we present here an attempt to merge these two cartographic products taking advantage of GIS-based tools. Moreover, we aim at testing, where possible, the Earth-born symbols designed for the Geological Map of Italy (ISPRA, 2009, 2018) to try to make the ‘language’ of geological maps as uniform as possible. In order to perform these analyses, we selected a series of putative fluvio-lacustrine landforms located in Holden crater, along the south-eastern inner rim (coordinates 26.9°S-33.5°W). The geological map allowed to distinguish several units separated by unconformities. In particular, the Impact unit, equivalent to the one recognized by Tanaka et al. (2014) is nonconformably covered by the materials located inside the crater and along the crater rim. These materials can be distinguished in two groups separated by a disconformity, the first characterized by a relatively large lateral extension of the units and the second by a scattered appearance of the units. Within the first group, a disconformity separates a lower part from the upper part of the succession. The geomorphological map allows to genetically interpret these units, defining: i) a first impact stage, correspondent to the emplacement of Holden crater, ii) a ‘water-related’ phase (correspondent to the lower group of the geological map), and iii) an aeolian phase made of mega-ripples and dunes (correspondent to the upper group of the geological map). The ‘water-related’ phase can be further divided in a fluvio-lacustrine and a glacial phase. We propose the realization of a unique geologic and geomorphologic product that includes a polygon layer with the geological units map described above, a linear layer with the unit contacts (i.e., stratigraphic characterization), and a linear shapefile with tectonic features and geomorphological interpretations. The polygonal units’ layer might be also suitable to subdivide the units in lower-order ranked units, using appropriate fields (i.e., formation/members on Earth). This approach might be best suited for projects developed at the local scale, similar to what is done on Earth, while a chronostratigraphic approach is more fitting and recommended at the regional and global scale. We will identify a possible set of graphical symbols describing the surface features, locating potential limits in current GIS symbology implementation. The GMAP project represents an opportunity to share our experience and to collect current practices in planetary and terrestrial geological and geomorphological mapping, identifying what elements are still lacking and need to be discussed or developed. References ISPRA (2009) - Carta Geologica d’Italia. Guida alla rappresentazione cartografica. Modifiche e integrazioni ai Quaderni 2/1996 e 6/1997. Roma, pp. 166 ISPRA (2018) - Carta Geomorfologica d’Italia. Guida alla rappresentazione cartografica. Modifiche e integrazioni al Quaderno 4/1994. Roma, pp. 95 Malin, M. C., J. F. Bell, B. A. Cantor, M. A. Caplinger, W. M. Calvin, T. R. Clancy, K. S. Edgett, L. Edwards, R. M. Haberle, and P. B. James (2007), Context camera investigation on board the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets(1991–2012), 112(E5). McEwen, A. S., E. M. Eliason, J. W. Bergstrom, N. T. Bridges, C. J. Hansen, A. W. Delamere, J. A. Grant, V. C. Gulick, K. E. Herkenhoff, and L. Keszthelyi (2007), Mars reconnaissance orbiter’s high resolution imaging science experiment (HiRISE), Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (1991–2012), 112(E5). Murchie, S. et al. (2009), Evidence for the origin of layered deposits in Candor Chasma, Mars, from mineral composition and hydrologic modeling, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 114, E00D05, doi:10.1029/2009je003343. Neukum, G, R Jaumann, and H. the and Team (2004), HRSC—The High Resolution Stereo Camera of Mars Express, European Space Agency Special Publication, SP-1240, 17–35. Tanaka, K., J. Skinner, J. Dohm, R. Irwin, E. Kolb, C. Fortezzo, T. Platz, G. Michael, and T. Hare (2014), Geologic map of Mars, USGS Scientific Investigations Map 3292, doi:10.3133/sim3292.

Introduction: In the recent years, discussions and demands came up to push the sustainability, reusability and, last but not least, the interoperability of research data within different scientific disciplines. In order to provide platforms to a) facilitate use and reuse of data in a transparent and sustainable way and to b) comply with recommendations and guidelines, research initiatives such as [1-3] have been established. Besides this, [4-6] were founded in order to provide the scientific community with platforms to archive sharable, discoverable and citable research data. Furthermore, initiatives like Nationale Forschungsdateninfrastruktur (NFDI) on a German national and the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) on a European level were established in order to provide a trusted and virtual environment that cuts across borders and scientific disciplines. All these initiatives are based on the FAIR principles in order to create findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable data [7]. Within missions e.g. to Mercury (BepiColombo), the Outer Solar System moons (JUICE), and asteroids (NASA`s Dawn mission) one way of scientific analysis is the systematic surface analyses based on the numeric and visual comparison and combination of different remote sensing data sets, such as optical image data, spectral-/hyperspectral sensor data, radar images, and/or derived products like digital terrain models (here: primary research data). The long-term storage of this mission data is guaranteed through the Planetary Data System (PDS) and Planetary Science Archive (PSA). Conditioned by the spatial component, the analyses mainly result in derived research data such as map(-like) figures, profiles/diagrams as well as models, and finally serve for describing research investigations within scientific publications. Hence, cross-links between different missions, surfaces, bodies and topics are possible and thematical analogies could be extracted by the spatial context. This includes a great potential to create a sustainable reuse of historical, current and future information. Aim: We here present a project that aims at a prototypical system for the structured storage, accessibility and visualization of planetary data compiled and developed within or with the contribution of Institute for Planetary Research (PF) at German Aerospace Center (DLR). The goal is to enable different user groups (currently limited to DLR) to store and spatially explore derived research data centrally, sustainably across multiple missions and scientific disciplines in planetary science for future investigations. Method and Implementation: Technically, the prototype is built upon well-established stack of open source software [8-10]. Furthermore, standards like [11] and [12], developed by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), serve as communication between user interface and the server. This software and standards are already combined within two software frameworks developed at the German Remote Sensing Data Center (DFD): 1. data storage and management capabilities as well as OGC-compliant interfaces for collaborative and web-based data access services (EOC Geoservice) [13]. 2. UKIS (Environmental and Crisis Information Systems), a framework developed at DFD or the implementation of geoscientific web applications [14]. Starting the development of the prototype, as first step a user analysis and inventory of the available data and information diversity in PF is needed (cf. requirement analysis). The second step will be the data storage and management within EOC Geoservice which combines a PostgreSQL database and a data management via GeoServer. Therefore, a representative and exemplary data collection is used, based on a recent approach developed within PF [15]. Here, an existing database established at Planetary Spectroscopy Laboratory (PSL), handling different kinds of spatial data, meets a vector-based data collection of thematic, mainly geologic and geomorphologic mapping results [e.g. 16, 17], and raster-based global mosaics in different resolutions [18, 19]. This data merging enables a multi-parameterized querying across different data types, multiple missions and scientific disciplines in planetary science. The third step will be the implementation of a geospatial information system based on UKIS. Within this, the visualization and utilization of the exemplary data package will be realized in an interactive, web-based system that displays all different datasets within the individual spatial reference system. For the already existing framework of UKIS this means an adaptation for planetary usage. With the integration of a user management system, the prototype could also integrate rules for data access restriction, needed for ongoing missions. The fourth and currently final step is to configure generic interfaces. These will enable a connection to other DLR systems and databases like the electronic library (ELIB) on the one hand. On the other hand, other archives and repositories outside DLR, which are substantially related to the internal stored data, could be linked. Summary: UKIS, as DFD-developed software framework for web-based geographic information systems, together with a geospatial data access and data management services, such as the DFD-hosted EOC Geoservice, are the ideal basis for such a spatial platform due to their stable architecture. Both can adapt to other spatial reference systems, as well as provide and visualize the planetary data after individual system configuration. A research data information system of this kind is essential to ensure the efficient and sustainable utilization of the information already obtained and published by previous research. This is considered a prerequisite for guaranteeing a continuous and long-term use of scientific information and knowledge within the departments, the institute and potentially also outside of DLR. References: [1] RDA, www.rda-alliance.org; [2] GoFAIR, www.go-fair.org; [3] CODATA, www.codata.org; [4] figshare, www.figshare.com/; [5] zenodo, www.zenodo.org; [6] pangea www.pangaea.de [7] Wilkinson M. et al. (2015) Scientific Data, 3. 1-9, doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18, [8] postgresql.org/, [9] geoserver.org/, [10] ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf, [11] opengeospatial.org/standards/wfs, [12] opengeospatial.org/standards/wms, [13] Dengler, K. et al. (2013) PV 2013, elib.dlr.de/86351/, [14] Muehlbauer, M. (2021) dlr.de/eoc/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5413/10560_read-21914/, [15] Nass, A. et al. (2017), [16] Nass, A. and the Dawn Science Team (2019)EPSC #1304, [17] Williams D.A. et al. (ed.), 2018, Icarus, 316, 1-204, [18] Roatsch et al, (2016) PSS doi:10.1016/j.pss.2016.05.011, [19] Roatsch et al., (2017) doi:10.1016/j.pss.2017.04.008

Cartography is traditionally associated with map making and the visualization of spatial information [...]

The concept of planetary mapping constitutes different activities within different contexts. Much like the field of cartography, it is an amalgamation of science, techniques, and artistic disciplines. It has undergone considerable changes over the last decades to cope with increasing demands related to data management, analysis, and visualization. Planetary mapping employs abstraction, which involves simplifications and generalizations. It aims to produce accessible visualization of planetary surfaces to gain insights and knowledge. Here, we show that different manifestations of this concept are interdependent and we discuss how different mapping concepts relate to each other semantically. We reason that knowledge gain can only be achieved through thematic mapping. The reasoning for systematic mapping and exploration is an intellectual product of thematic mapping. In order to highlight these relationships, we (a) develop in-depth definitions for different types of planetary mapping, (b) discuss data and knowledge flow across different mapping concepts, and (c) highlight systemic limitations related to data that we acquire and attempt to abstract through models. We finally develop a semantic proto-model that focuses on the transformation of information and knowledge between mapping domains. We furthermore argue that due to compositionality, map products suffer not only from abstraction but also from limitations related to uncertainties during data processing. We conclude that a complete database is needed for mapping in order to establish contextualization and extract knowledge. That knowledge is needed for reasoning for planning and operational decision making. This work furthermore aims to motivate future community-based discussions on functional semantic models and ontologies for the future development of knowledge extraction from thematic maps.

The NASA Dawn spacecraft visited asteroid 4 Vesta between 2011 and 2012 and dwarf planet 1 Ceres between 2015 and 2018 to investigate their surfaces through optical and hyperspectral imaging and their composition through gamma-ray and neutron spectroscopy. For the global mapping investigation of both proto-planets, geologic mappers employed Geographic Information System (GIS) software to map 15 quadrangles using optical and hyperspectral data and to produce views of the geologic evolution through individual maps and research papers. While geologic mapping was the core motivation of the mapping investigation, the project never aimed to produce homogeneous and consistent map representations. The chosen mapping approach and its implementation led to a number of inconsistencies regarding cartographic representation, including differential generalization through varying mapping scales, topologic inconsistencies, lack of semantic integrity, and scale consistency, and ultimately, to the management of reusable research data. Ongoing data acquisition during the mapping phase created additional challenges for the homogenization of mapping results and a potential derivation of a global map. This contribution reviews cartographic and data perspectives on the mapping investigation of Ceres and highlights (a) data sources, (b) the cartographic concept, (c) mapping conduct, and (d) dissemination as well as research-data management arrangements. It furthermore discusses decisions and experiences made during mapping and finishes with a set of recommendations from the viewpoint of the cartographic sciences.

In the planetary sciences, the amount of remote sensing data and derived research products has been continuously increasing over the last few decades. The amount and complexity of the data require growing sophistication in data analysis, data management and data provision targeted at a wider research community. Here we present a prototype for structured storage and visualization of planetary data based on technology originally developed for Earth-based applications. This includes a centralized system for storing scientific findings and data products in order to efficiently manage, cross-link and enhance visibility of data products, including interim findings and source code. The aim here is to facilitate transparent management and re-use of research data and scientific results for long-term access and sustainable research data management.

In the planetary sciences, the volume of remote sensing data and derived research products has been continuously increasing over the last five decades. The amount and complexity of data require growing sophistication in data analysis, data management, and data provision targeted at a growing research community. In order to efficiently manage and facilitate the reuse of research data and to provide stable and long-term access, sustainable research data solutions are needed. We here present a prototype for structured storage, management, and visualisation of planetary research data and discuss the particular benefits, as well as challenges of such an information system for data management, for establishing data references by cross-linking information, and for improving the visibility of data products. The prototype is a co-development of two research institutes of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) and is based on two components: the Earth Observation Center (EOC) Geoservice, which constitutes an infrastructure providing data storage and management capabilities, as well as an interface compliant with collaborative and web-based data access services, and the Environmental and Crisis Information Systems (UKIS), a framework for the implementation of geoscientific web applications.

Introduction: OpenPlanetary, or simply "OP", is an international non-profit organisation that promotes open research in the planetary science and exploration communities: sharing ideas and collaborating on planetary research and data analysis problems, new challenges, and opportunities [1]. OpenPlanetary started in 2015 as a way for participants of the ESA’s Planetary GIS Workshop to stay connected and exchange information related to and beyond this workshop. It expanded further by playing a similar role for the second USGS-hosted Planetary Data Workshop (PDW) in 2017. OpenPlanetary has continued to support the biannual PDW and provides a more persistent forum for participants to highlight presented topics and discussions from the workshops. In 2018, we established OpenPlanetary as a non-profit organisation (Association under 1901 French Law, [2]) in order to provide us with a legal framework to sustainably fund our community framework, projects and activities, and to better serve the planetary science community as a whole. OpenPlanetary is governed by a Board of Directors, elected for two years, which (1) define the policy and general orientation, (2) initiate, endorse, lead, or contribute to the projects and activities, and (3) can make use of the funds of the Association for any endorsed project or activity; the Bureau contains a 3-person subset of the Board members (a president, treasurer, and secretary) and serves as the executive body of the Association. Mission: Our mission is to promote and facilitate the open practice of planetary science and data analysis for professionals and amateurs. We do so by organizing events and conducting collaborative projects aimed at creating scientific, technical and educational resources, tools and data accessible to all. Members and Membership: With currently 300+ members across the world, OpenPlanetary membership is free and open to research and education professionals: scientists, engineers, designers, teachers and students, space enthusiasts and citizen scientists [3]. Although the early membership had a strong representation in planetary surface and mapping sciences, OpenPlanetary has expanded and is intended to serve as an “umbrella” for all communities of planetary data and tool users, producers or providers across scientific disciplines, space missions or working groups. Collaboration Platform: Our collaboration platform mainly consists of fully-featured Slack and Github instances. OP members use OP Slack workspace to stay connected and have real-time discussions with other members [4], and are entitled to request admin rights to host and manage open source projects on OP Github organization [5]. Online Forum: We provide a public online OP Forum for research professionals and amateurs across all planetary science disciplines and communities to find help, share and discuss data, tools and resources [6]. While OP Slack is considered for the more informal discussions, the OP Forum is intended to post Q/A and discussion ”gems'' from OP Slack, or any resources that would help a broader community (eg: a short tip, a handy how-to guide or a list of curated resources), and that would benefit from having a permanent web-presence and being discoverable by search engines. Data Cafés: Since 2017, we have organised Data Cafés at scientific conferences for people to meet, share, discuss and solve common challenges and issues related to planetary data handling and analysis. These events follow an "unconference" format allowing and encouraging anyone to propose a topic and lead a group activity (eg: demo, tutorial, hack), or simply to ask for help [7]. Online Events: Unable to continue with the in-person Data Cafés in 2020, we started hosting virtual online events: (1) OPvCon in June 2020 was our first free virtual conference, scheduled in place of the cancelled Planetary Science Informatics and Data Analytics Conference (PSIDA). It consisted of lecture-length talks from invited speakers, networking opportunities, workshops and tutorials, and a hackathon [8], and (2) since March 2020, we have hosted weekly OP Lunch Talks to present and discuss technical topics of interest to the planetary science community [9]. Most of these events are recorded and made publicly available on YouTube. They now represent a substantial collection of high-quality informational resources and training videos on diverse topics related to planetary science [10]. Community Projects: Our flagship project is OpenPlanetaryMap (OPM), an open planetary mapping and social platform and effort to foster planetary mapping and cartography on the web for all [11]. We also support PlanetaryPy, a community effort to develop a core package for planetary science in Python and foster interoperability between Python planetary science packages [12]. A number of other projects not strictly homed under the OP umbrella have arisen from collaborations fostered in OP Slack or during OP Lunch discussion sessions. Outlook: We held our first yearly OpenPlanetary General Assembly in December 2020 [13], during which a new Board of Directors was elected. Our main focus within the next couple of years is on (1) consolidating and expanding OP Lunch and other virtual activities, (2) increasing the usage and impact of the OP Forum for all communities (eg: Planetary Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) communities), and (3) identifying sustainable funding opportunities. References: [1] https://www.openplanetary.org, [2] https://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/associations/detail-annonce/associations_b/20180009/457, https://www.openplanetary.org/join, [4] http://openplanetary.slack.com, [5] https://github.com/openplanetary, [6] https://forum.openplanetary.org [7] https://github.com/openplanetary/op-data-cafe, [8] https://www.openplanetary.org/vcon, [9] https://www.openplanetary.org/vlunch, [10] https://www.youtube.com/openplanetary, [11] https://www.openplanetary.org/opm, [12] https://planetarypy.org, [13] https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QfGzTT760DpTCFucCaOsOGFLY8Wyy1rE

Introduction: OpenPlanetary, or simply "OP", is an international non-profit organisation that promotes open research in the planetary science and exploration communities: sharing ideas and collaborating on planetary research and data analysis problems, new challenges, and opportunities [1]. OpenPlanetary started in 2015 as a way for participants of the ESA’s Planetary GIS Workshop to stay connected and exchange information related to and beyond this workshop. It expanded further by playing a similar role for the second USGS-hosted Planetary Data Workshop (PDW) in 2017. OpenPlanetary has continued to support the biannual PDW and provides a more persistent forum for participants to highlight presented topics and discussions from the workshops. In 2018, we established OpenPlanetary as a non-profit organisation (Association under 1901 French Law, [2]) in order to provide us with a legal framework to sustainably fund our community framework, projects and activities, and to better serve the planetary science community as a whole. OpenPlanetary is governed by a Board of Directors, elected for two years, which (1) define the policy and general orientation, (2) initiate, endorse, lead, or contribute to the projects and activities, and (3) can make use of the funds of the Association for any endorsed project or activity; the Bureau contains a 3-person subset of the Board members (a president, treasurer, and secretary) and serves as the executive body of the Association. Mission: Our mission is to promote and facilitate the open practice of planetary science and data analysis for professionals and amateurs. We do so by organizing events and conducting collaborative projects aimed at creating scientific, technical and educational resources, tools and data accessible to all. Members and Membership: With currently 300+ members across the world, OpenPlanetary membership is free and open to research and education professionals: scientists, engineers, designers, teachers and students, space enthusiasts and citizen scientists [3]. Although the early membership had a strong representation in planetary surface and mapping sciences, OpenPlanetary has expanded and is intended to serve as an “umbrella” for all communities of planetary data and tool users, producers or providers across scientific disciplines, space missions or working groups. Collaboration Platform: Our collaboration platform mainly consists of fully-featured Slack and Github instances. OP members use OP Slack workspace to stay connected and have real-time discussions with other members [4], and are entitled to request admin rights to host and manage open source projects on OP Github organization [5]. Online Forum: We provide a public online OP Forum for research professionals and amateurs across all planetary science disciplines and communities to find help, share and discuss data, tools and resources [6]. While OP Slack is considered for the more informal discussions, the OP Forum is intended to post Q/A and discussion ”gems'' from OP Slack, or any resources that would help a broader community (eg: a short tip, a handy how-to guide or a list of curated resources), and that would benefit from having a permanent web-presence and being discoverable by search engines. Data Cafés: Since 2017, we have organised Data Cafés at scientific conferences for people to meet, share, discuss and solve common challenges and issues related to planetary data handling and analysis. These events follow an "unconference" format allowing and encouraging anyone to propose a topic and lead a group activity (eg: demo, tutorial, hack), or simply to ask for help [7]. Online Events: Unable to continue with the in-person Data Cafés in 2020, we started hosting virtual online events: (1) OPvCon in June 2020 was our first free virtual conference, scheduled in place of the cancelled Planetary Science Informatics and Data Analytics Conference (PSIDA). It consisted of lecture-length talks from invited speakers, networking opportunities, workshops and tutorials, and a hackathon [8], and (2) since March 2020, we have hosted weekly OP Lunch Talks to present and discuss technical topics of interest to the planetary science community [9]. Most of these events are recorded and made publicly available on YouTube. They now represent a substantial collection of high-quality informational resources and training videos on diverse topics related to planetary science [10]. Community Projects: Our flagship project is OpenPlanetaryMap (OPM), an open planetary mapping and social platform and effort to foster planetary mapping and cartography on the web for all [11]. We also support PlanetaryPy, a community effort to develop a core package for planetary science in Python and foster interoperability between Python planetary science packages [12]. A number of other projects not strictly homed under the OP umbrella have arisen from collaborations fostered in OP Slack or during OP Lunch discussion sessions. Outlook: We held our first yearly OpenPlanetary General Assembly in December 2020 [13], during which a new Board of Directors was elected. Our main focus within the next couple of years is on (1) consolidating and expanding OP Lunch and other virtual activities, (2) increasing the usage and impact of the OP Forum for all communities (eg: Planetary Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) communities), and (3) identifying sustainable funding opportunities. References: [1] https://www.openplanetary.org, [2] https://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/associations/detail-annonce/associations_b/20180009/457, [3] https://www.openplanetary.org/join, [4] http://openplanetary.slack.com, [5] https://github.com/openplanetary, [6] https://forum.openplanetary.org [7] https://github.com/openplanetary/op-data-cafe, [8] https://www.openplanetary.org/vcon, [9] https://www.openplanetary.org/vlunch, [10] https://www.youtube.com/openplanetary, [11] https://www.openplanetary.org/opm, [12] https://planetarypy.org, [13] https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QfGzTT760DpTCFucCaOsOGFLY8Wyy1rE