GIS
› OpenStreetMap
› General
›
Tagging
Active volcanoes
Locked
12
12
 
|
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 volcanoes as volcano:status=active? [1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Q3E [2] http://bit.ly/30OIUKw _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- cascafico.altervista.org twitter.com/cascafico |
|
There is some documentation at 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 2020, 14:04 by [hidden email]:
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by cascafico
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. 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 historic times. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:40 AM Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> 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 historic times. That's often entirely verifiable by the existence of human artefacts damaged by a previous eruption. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
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 <[hidden email]> ha scritto: On Friday 24 January 2020, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: Il 24 gen 2020 2:40 PM, "Christoph Hormann" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- cascafico.altervista.org twitter.com/cascafico |
|
|
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 recent activity, ie for touristic purposes? OSM in general does not map historic features or events. You should map what is at present verifiable to observe. If there are fumarolic activites, hot springs etc. you can map these using appropriate tags (geological=volcanic_fumarole, natural=hot_spring etc.). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by cascafico
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 [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
..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, <[hidden email]> wrote: On 24/01/20 15:52, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by [hidden email]:
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. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by [hidden email]:
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by cascafico
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:04:21 +0100
Cascafico Giovanni <[hidden email]> 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 volcanoes as volcano:status=active? "Active" is too vague to be mapped. For example, geologists would consider Mount Rainier to be active because it's producing the occasional earthquake swarm or steam vent, while the average person would say it's dormant because it hasn't erupted since 1854. -- Mark _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
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) On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:16 AM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote: Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by [hidden email]: _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Wagner
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 19:22, Mark Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:
+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 widely available). But "active" is too broad a term to be meaningful, I think. -- Paul _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> 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 idea out of hand. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 20:44, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano#Volcanic_activity (it's fairly representative of other definitions I've found). It's messy. There's a "it hasn't erupted in X years so it's dormant" definition in there, but supervolcanoes like Yellowstone are excluded. Iceland's volcanoes are very interconnected. Etc. About the only characteristic I've seen so far upon which there is broad agreement (and is verifiable by ordinary mappers) is the presence of a lava lake (which many people probably think of when they see the term "active volcano"). That's mappable, in my opinion. If we can pin any other terms down more precisely, and show that scientists agree with those definitions, and scientific literature that meets a general scientific consensus is available classifying volcanoes in those terms, then I'm all for it. -- Paul _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow
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 sulphuric lakes are closed now, but the road over the mountain (through the sulphur vents) and the famous tourist town of Kusatsu remain open. Akagi last had a small steam eruption in the 700s. It really hasn’t done anything since I live 70 KM from the most active volcano on the main island - Mt Asama. Some day it will Erupt and in the future violently explode. It smokes and burps and makes earthquakes regularly. There was a major eruption on mt Fuji in 1707 which made a giant crater on the flank (Hoei crater). The 2011 Earthquake(s) triggered a 6.0 below Fuji, so it is still “active”, yet hasn’t really done anything since the hoei eruption. 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 = smokes, ash burps, eruptions, or other visible Signs of activity In the last 20 years. 20 years is nothing to the volcano nor those who live near it. Some scheme like that. Whatever names you want, I think that is a good time scale. Make it a year/date if known *in addition*. So many volcanoes will have a last eruption date & status that will stay the same for the foreseeable lifetime of all humans currently on earth (Akagi), some that will probably not change in 50 years (Mt Fuji) and even more that will probably also not have data change in decades (Kusastu-shirane). Active volcanoes will get their tags updated when they erupt because locals take notice *and* if we make some easy schemes for them to tag the info. No need to keep updating the status of Asama - it is “current”. Make it easy and the worry about data currency is not an issue. Javbw PS - tagging calderas is impossible currently - no way to tie the name of the giant famous Caldera (Akagi) to the numerous little named (and largely obscure) peaks that make up the rim. People get all in a tizzy worrying about “Prominence“, whereas the internationally famous tag for Mt fuji is drowned out by the several “mountains” that make up the named bumps on the crater rim. Mt Fuji should be rendered at z6 and Akagi at z8, and the little obscure “peaks” at z14. Handwringing over prominence be dammed: the map is worse for not having the same level of detail we give to roads and cities - or even railroad rail! - to mountains. Without a tag schema, there is no way to get it rendered properly. Same goes for all of this useful data. Javbw. > On Jan 25, 2020, at 4:29 AM, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote: > > As a person living 50km from an "active" but dormant volcano, Mount Baker [1], I definitely know its status. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 12:42 PM John Willis via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
Volcano sites near me regularly let off steam which is hard to differentiate from smoke. Would you consider steam under the current? Mount St. Helens last erupted in May of 1980, it is coming up on 40 years since the last eruption. However, it continues to build a new dome which I would classify as current under your suggestion. I'm going to reach out to a UW reacher to see if he can provide us with terms that would be acceptable to scientists as well as OSM. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On 27/1/20 1:32 am, Paul Allen wrote:
I would suggest using a constant tag to go along with what is being mapped.
If lava is visible then, perhaps, lava=yes... lava=visible???
I note that wikipedia says, lava is molten rock. So OSM may use
the same definition to stay away from cooled lava that is no
longer molten.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 00:33, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
I saw reference to this site a little while back (ironically, the morning of the White Island eruption in New Zealand :-() So what do we say: 43 / 70 / 565 / 871 or 1428? :-) Or possibly the 71 "Frequently Active" listed here? As they say, it's hard to point at a volcano & say it's active or not! Thanks Graeme _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
Responding to my own post after looking at the site a bit more How about using the common terms that everyone recognises, together with OSM definitions of: Active - Known to have had major / multiple / fatal eruptions; frequently active; significant lava flows - the 186 volcanoes that are listed as "Noteworthy" Dormant - probably the 1428 "Historically Active" - confirmed & likely historical eruptions (mixing historical & Holocene together) Extinct - ain't nothing happening no more! :-) This does, of course, relate to using info from that list. Do any of our US friends know how helpful the Smithsonian is when it comes to sharing data? https://www.si.edu/termsofuse/ Thanks Graeme _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
«
Return to Tagging
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |