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 regularly putting out lava, but has gone dormant, since my first visited. If the OP is talking about active in the sense that it's not dormant then I don't believe it should be tagged as active. Most volcanoes don't erupt for long periods.
I wouldn't be opposed to adding a tag to indicate the status as active in the sense it may erupt at anytime (in geological time frames sense) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Baker [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arenal_Volcano On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:16 AM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > But it is not verifiable in practice by amateur surveyors. > > > > Similarly frequency of a road in cars/hour is not a practically > verifiable quantity, > > since determining it would require long-term observations > > which are not realistic for mappers to do. > > I think if we go very far down that road, we need explicitly to codify > what we expect the capabilities and limitations of amateur surveyors > to be. > > I can't quite bring myself to accept the argument that correct > information, independently verifiable by some means (even if > specialized), and known to a mapper, cannot be mapped because some > other mapper is less capable. I could live with it if we were to > fomalize what we expect a mapper's limitations to be - but I see very > little hope of achieving consensus on that, and very little reason to > try. > > I feel strongly that tagging should respect both capabilities and > limitations. I shouldn't have to do research to sketch out the basics > of what I can see with my own eyes in the field, but similarly, I > shouldn't have to keep my local knowledge to myself. For example, I > don't think I could reliably tell an estravelle from a ponor, but that > doesn't keep me from mapping 'natural=sinkhole'. I have no objection > to someone with the necessary knowledge adding 'sinkhole=*' to the > tagging. I would object to a tagging scheme that would require me to > discriminate the two, but that's not what we're talking about with > tagging that a volcano is active. A mapper who doesn't have the > information, or cannot provide a means to verify it, need not tag it. > > -- > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
