[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fumarole

Kyle Hensel K.y.l.e at outlook.co.nz
Tue Sep 14 23:00:36 UTC 2021


At the moment, I have suggested was:natural=fumarole on the wiki page.
Are lifecycle prefixes the best option here, or is there a better way of tagging this?


Kyle

From: Martin Koppenhoefer<mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 15 September 2021 10:57
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools<mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fumarole


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/20210914/53598e49/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list