[Tagging] spring:type=hot deprecation

Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner at gmx.at
Fri Jan 8 17:17:41 UTC 2021

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 06:57:26 -0800
Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Geothermal hot springs look and smell and function differently than a water
> spring.

This is according to my layman understanding - in this generalization -
completely wrong. You seem to have one particular type of spring in
mind but not all of them have a significantly different chemical
composition ("look and smell") from colder springs. And there are cold
mineral springs too.
In all springs subsurface water is flowing out of the ground due to the
geological composition of that area. In some cases this includes water
that came in contact with geothermal heat sources. This water is then
traveling further towards the surface due to its potential and/or
thermal energy along faults in the crust to form a aquifers. It
possibly mixes with other underground water bodies before flowing out
at the spring. There are no clear distinction of hot and warm springs
either and the used ones are often insufficient.

> Tags are free. There is no harm in allowing different tags for different
> features.

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70025915 gives a nice taste of how
geologists try to figure these things out and how fuzzy these
distinctions really are. Sharing a main tag would reduce the pressure
on mappers to get the distinction right that geologist struggle with
themselves. Fig. 11 of that publication in particular show how diverse
the sources of springs can be around a single mountain.

And don't get me started on geysers :P At least they show a noticeably
different behavior on the surface and are geologically peculiar (but I
would indeed rather see them mapped as spring with a special type
since that's exactly what they are...)

Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

More information about the Tagging mailing list