<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/1/20 1:32 am, Paul Allen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dOLdcCLw3yat1Kb=CczBtsfbC8E=jCfVzxPpp69Z5TZoZA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 20:44, Kevin Kenny <<a
href="mailto:kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at
2:38 PM Paul Allen <<a href="mailto:pla16021@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">pla16021@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> But "active" is too broad a term to be meaningful, I
think.<br>
<br>
Well, then, let's clarify the intention, narrow the
definition, choose<br>
a more appropriate keyword if necessary, wikify the narrowed<br>
definition, and use that, rather than rejecting the idea out
of hand.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Good idea. So I did some digging. There are no
scientifically-agreed</div>
<div>definitions of the terms. It's more of a folksonomy that
scientists sometimes</div>
<div>use when talking to "folks." See <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano#Volcanic_activity"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano#Volcanic_activity</a></div>
<div>(it's fairly representative of other definitions I've
found). It's messy. There's a</div>
<div>"it hasn't erupted in X years so it's dormant" definition
in there, but supervolcanoes</div>
<div>like Yellowstone are excluded. Iceland's volcanoes are
very interconnected. Etc.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>About the only characteristic I've seen so far upon which
there is broad</div>
<div>agreement (and is verifiable by ordinary mappers) is the
presence of a lava</div>
<div>lake (which many people probably think of when they see
the term "active</div>
<div>volcano"). That's mappable, in my opinion.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I would suggest using a constant tag to go along with what is
being mapped.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>If lava is visible then, perhaps, lava=yes... lava=visible??? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I note that wikipedia says, lava is molten rock. So OSM may use
the same definition to stay away from cooled lava that is no
longer molten. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dOLdcCLw3yat1Kb=CczBtsfbC8E=jCfVzxPpp69Z5TZoZA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we can pin any other terms down more precisely, and
show that scientists agree</div>
<div>with those definitions, and scientific literature that
meets a general scientific</div>
<div>consensus is available classifying volcanoes in those
terms, then I'm all for it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- <br>
</div>
<div>Paul</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>