[Tagging] Hot springs

Richard Z. ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 09:37:52 UTC 2014

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:44:40AM +0100, Henning Scholland wrote:
> Am 03.03.2014 23:45, schrieb Richard Z.:
> >>> All together, I am not really sure if it is smart to split
> >>> springs by temperature.
> > not by temperature, which is very subjective as explained in the
> > rationale. Where a spring is localy known as hot spring or thermal
> > spring it should be mapped as such.
> I don't like this subjective tagging, because it's more then "localy
> known as xy". Mainly it depends on temperature of water vs temperature
> of air.

unfortunately wikipedia expressly says:
"There is no universally accepted definition of a hot spring. For example, one can find the phrase hot spring defined as:"
 - a dozen of possible definitions which I won't copy here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_spring#Definitions)

Should that preclude us from mapping them even though they are locally well
known as hot springs?

>	 In a cold region a spring with 20°C could be known as hot
> spring just because all other springs are much colder. But you would
> agree, that no one wants to jump in there and relax ;)

wanting to relax in one is not really a definition of a hot spring.

> So for this case you have to take care also about temp=*.

we might think about an optional temperature tag but in my opinion it would be
one of the more problematic tags. The temperature may not be exactly known
or may be variable. People would start adding it to lakes and oceans:)

> But I understand your wish to classify a spring a bit more detailed. I
> think it would be better to use additional tags for natural=spring.
> Eg. termal=yes or something similar.

geothermal=yes would be closer. But in a strict sense this would exclude springs
with volcanically heated water.


More information about the Tagging mailing list