Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

> On Jan 30, 2020, at 8:36 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > the things that we tag in OSM won't necessarily map 1 to 1 onto wikipedia > pages. Generally this is true, but I think most active volcanoes - especially ones OSM mappers would be mapping - have wiki pages.

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

FWIW, here is a query results map showing all volcanoes (805 of them) in Wikidata that already have the GVP ID:

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Andy, On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 3:36 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > > I suspect that trying to rely on wikidata/wikipedia for this link will > fail for a different reason though - the things that we tag in OSM won't > necessarily map 1 to 1 onto wikipedia pages. Sometimes an OSMer will > want to

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On 29/01/2020 20:47, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Wikidata already has the GVP property: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1886 So it's just a matter of ensuring that all volcanoes tracked by the GVP is present in Wikidata and has the correct P1886 value. To a regular human being

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 23:16, Clifford Snow wrote: > > Can you explain how that would work? Take the example of Mount Baker. It > has a wikidata Q code of Q594387. GVP has a volcano number of 321010. What > would a tag look like? Please excuse my ignorance of Wikipedia. I can read > articles

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:48 PM Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Wikidata already has the GVP property: > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1886 > > So it's just a matter of ensuring that all volcanoes tracked by the GVP is > present in Wikidata and has the correct P1886 value. > Can you

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Wikidata already has the GVP property: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1886 So it's just a matter of ensuring that all volcanoes tracked by the GVP is present in Wikidata and has the correct P1886 value. On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 4:20 AM Clifford Snow wrote: > > > Sent from my Android

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 20:15, Jez Nicholson wrote: > Work with Wikidata to link the GVP article to their record on the volcano, > and only have the Wikidata link in OSM. > Are you going to guarantee that ALL volcanoes listed by the GVP have corresponding Wikidata pages? If not, this idea seems

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Sent from my Android phone. On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:14 PM Jez Nicholson wrote: > Work with Wikidata to link the GVP article to their record on the volcano, > and only have the Wikidata link in OSM. > Any Wikipedians on here want to take this suggestion on? >

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Work with Wikidata to link the GVP article to their record on the volcano, and only have the Wikidata link in OSM. On Wed, 29 Jan 2020, 20:07 Paul Allen, wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 19:58, Clifford Snow > wrote: > >> >> I like the suggestion of having a link to GVP article. >> > > +1 > >

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 19:58, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I like the suggestion of having a link to GVP article. > +1 -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Through a friend at the University of Washington I received the following reply: The Global Volcanism Program (GVP) that Steve pointed to you has the most consistently applied standard for classifying volcanoes around the globe. In that context, any volcano that has erupted in the Holocene [1]

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:47:39 +1100 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/1/20 6:24 pm, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > > I agree with you that this is the scale that volcanologists use, > > but people want to draw a distinction between something that > > erupted recently compared sometime

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:02:17 +1100 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/1/20 1:32 am, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 20:44, Kevin Kenny > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen > >

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 04:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > As they say, it's hard to point at a volcano & say it's active or not! > Yup. Worse, public perception of "active" differs from that list. Public perception of "active" is more like "really, really active" (which isn't a category on

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On 27/1/20 6:24 pm, John Willis via Tagging wrote: I agree with you that this is the scale that volcanologists use, but people want to draw a distinction between something that erupted recently compared sometime in the last 200 years Perhaps it is easier to just apply the “active” and

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

I agree with you that this is the scale that volcanologists use, but people want to draw a distinction between something that erupted recently compared sometime in the last 200 years Perhaps it is easier to just apply the “active” and “Frequently active” tags via this third-party data source,

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > I saw reference to this site a little while back (ironically, the morning > of the White Island eruption in New Zealand :-() > https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=activevolcanoes > > So what do we say: 43 / 70 / 565 / 871 or

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 00:33, Paul Allen wrote: > > Good idea. So I did some digging. There are no scientifically-agreed > definitions of the terms. It's more of a folksonomy that scientists > sometimes > use when talking to "folks." See >

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On 27/1/20 1:32 am, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 20:44, Kevin Kenny > wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote: > But "active" is too broad a term to be meaningful, I think. Well, then, let's

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 12:42 PM John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I think there is a way to make a very simple subtag, such as > > Volcano:active= > No= Considered dead / collapsed > Dormant = 500+ years since last eruption > Quiet = 100 > Recent = 20 > Current =

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Yep - I live at the base of Mt Akagi in Japan. Locals know the volcanoes. Some of that is historical, some is local knowledge. I have been hiking on many volcanoes around me. Kusatsu-Shirane was closed in 2014 after a small steam eruption killed/injured some skiers. The hiking, skiing and

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 20:44, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen 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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen 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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 19:22, Mark Wagner wrote: > > "Active" is too vague to be mapped. > +1 Like Kevin Kenny, I have no problem with allowing for different levels of expertise. I have no problem with making use of expert sources (as long as there is a good consensus and their opinions are

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

As a person living 50km from an "active" but dormant volcano, Mount Baker [1], I definitely know its status. What I'm not sure of is the OP definition of active. Mount Baker is an active but dormant volcano that only puts out a bit of steam. For a while, in my life time, Arenal in Costa Rica was

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:04:21 +0100 Cascafico Giovanni wrote: > vHello ML! > this query [1] is supposed to display active volcanes. I made some > research using Sentinel-2 browser, but it happens that most volcanoes > doesn't have an infrared response [2]. > > Which is the criteria to tag

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > That's often entirely verifiable by the existence of human artefacts > damaged by a previous eruption. On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:23 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > But it is not verifiable in practice by amateur surveyors. > >

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:40 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > >> Reason for the lack of verifiability is that what an active volcano is >> in almost all uses of this term does not depend on the current state of >> the volcano but on its history -

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

..or follow the Wikidata:id and link out to another data source like https://volcano.si.edu/ to avoid transient data in OSM On Fri, 24 Jan 2020, 15:24 Alessandro Sarretta, < alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24/01/20 15:52, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: > > How to tag its recent activity,

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On 24/01/20 15:52, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: How to tag its recent activity, ie for touristic purposes? Maybe a last_eruption:date=* tag (with a documented source) could be enough do define recent activities? Ale ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Friday 24 January 2020, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: > So "active" is ment in geological time... rather wide for OSM :-) No, the tag does not have a consistent meaning, it simply means some mapper has at some point subjectively considered this feature to be an active volcano. > How to tag its

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

So "active" is ment in geological time... rather wide for OSM :-) How to tag its recent activity, ie for touristic purposes? Il ven 24 gen 2020, 14:40 Christoph Hormann ha scritto: > On Friday 24 January 2020, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: > > > > Which is the criteria to tag volcanoes as

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:40 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > Reason for the lack of verifiability is that what an active volcano is > in almost all uses of this term does not depend on the current state of > the volcano but on its history - most commonly during the holocene (10k > years) or during

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On Friday 24 January 2020, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: > > Which is the criteria to tag volcanoes as volcano:status=active? That tag is practically non-verifiable and therefore does not really belong in OSM. But since everyone is free to add any tags they want in OSM such tags of course exist.

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

There is some documentation athttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dvolcano Note that wiki is not binding and may be wrong. Also, there are apparently multiple ways to classify volcano activity See for example https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_volcanoes 24 Jan