[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fumarole
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Sep 14 22:51:11 UTC 2021
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging