[Tagging] Active volcanoes
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sun Jan 26 22:02:17 UTC 2020
On 27/1/20 1:32 am, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 20:44, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
> <mailto:kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com
> <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > But "active" is too broad a term to be meaningful, I think.
> Well, then, let's clarify the intention, narrow the definition, choose
> a more appropriate keyword if necessary, wikify the narrowed
> definition, and use that, rather than rejecting the idea out of hand.
> Good idea. So I did some digging. There are no scientifically-agreed
> definitions of the terms. It's more of a folksonomy that scientists
> use when talking to "folks." See
> (it's fairly representative of other definitions I've found). It's
> messy. There's a
> "it hasn't erupted in X years so it's dormant" definition in there,
> but supervolcanoes
> like Yellowstone are excluded. Iceland's volcanoes are very
> interconnected. Etc.
> About the only characteristic I've seen so far upon which there is broad
> agreement (and is verifiable by ordinary mappers) is the presence of a
> lake (which many people probably think of when they see the term "active
> volcano"). That's mappable, in my opinion.
I would suggest using a constant tag to go along with what is being mapped.
If lava is visible then, perhaps, lava=yes... lava=visible???
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.
> If we can pin any other terms down more precisely, and show that
> scientists agree
> with those definitions, and scientific literature that meets a general
> consensus is available classifying volcanoes in those terms, then I'm
> all for it.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging