Active volcanoes

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
37 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Active volcanoes

cascafico
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Tagging mailing list
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



24 Jan 2020, 14:04 by [hidden email]:
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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Christoph Hormann-2
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Kevin Kenny-3
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

cascafico
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:
>
> 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.



Il 24 gen 2020 2:40 PM, "Christoph Hormann" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
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


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

--
cascafico.altervista.org
twitter.com/cascafico
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Christoph Hormann-2
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Alessandro Sarretta
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Jez Nicholson
..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:
> 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

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3



Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by [hidden email]:
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.
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Kevin Kenny-3
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Mark Wagner
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Clifford Snow
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]:
> 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


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Mark Wagner
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 19:22, Mark Wagner <[hidden email]> 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 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Kevin Kenny-3
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Paul Allen
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:
> 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.

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
(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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Tagging mailing list
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Clifford Snow


On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 12:42 PM John Willis via Tagging <[hidden email]> 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 = smokes, ash burps, eruptions, or other visible Signs of activity In the last 20 years.

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.

--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Warin
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On 27/1/20 1:32 am, Paul Allen wrote:
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:
> 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.

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
(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.


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.



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



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Paul Allen



On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 00:33, 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
(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.


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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Active volcanoes

Graeme Fitzpatrick



On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[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!

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
12