[Tagging] Active volcanoes

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Fri Jan 24 18:15:55 UTC 2020


Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com:
> That's often entirely verifiable by the existence of human artefacts
> damaged by a previous eruption.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:23 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
<tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> But it is not verifiable in practice by amateur surveyors.
>
> Similarly frequency of a road in cars/hour is not a practically verifiable quantity,
> since determining it would require long-term observations
> which are not realistic for mappers to do.

I think if we go very far down that road, we need explicitly to codify
what we expect the capabilities and limitations of amateur surveyors
to be.

I can't quite bring myself to accept the argument that correct
information, independently verifiable by some means (even if
specialized), and known to a mapper, cannot be mapped because some
other mapper is less capable. I could live with it if we were to
fomalize what we expect a mapper's limitations to be - but I see very
little hope of achieving consensus on that, and very little reason to
try.

I feel strongly that tagging should respect both capabilities and
limitations. I shouldn't have to do research to sketch out the basics
of what I can see with my own eyes in the field, but similarly, I
shouldn't have to keep my local knowledge to myself. For example, I
don't think I could reliably tell an estravelle from a ponor, but that
doesn't keep me from mapping 'natural=sinkhole'. I have no objection
to someone with the necessary knowledge adding 'sinkhole=*' to the
tagging.  I would object to a tagging scheme that would require me to
discriminate the two, but that's not what we're talking about with
tagging that a volcano is active. A mapper who doesn't have the
information, or cannot provide a means to verify it, need not tag it.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin



More information about the Tagging mailing list