[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fumarole

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15 Sep 2021, at 00:15, Kyle Hensel <K.y.l.e at outlook.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> > I think it should be clarified how inactive fumaroles should be tagged [...]
> 
> I’ve added a section to the wiki page. In short: don’t map inactive ones, unless they’re very significant, then a lifecycle prefix could be used if a mapper really wants to map them.  
> 


I’m with Mateusz here his picture was convincing, better suggest tagging for inactive ones than stating that only very significant inactives should get the same tags as active fumaroles

Cheers Martin 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210915/b46e29fc/attachment.htm>