Tagging remain of extinct volcanoes

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Tagging remain of extinct volcanoes

Mateusz Konieczny-3
Is it OK to use natural=volcano for remains of volcanoes?

There is volcano:status=extinct but I feel that tagging
volcano-related rocks as volcanoes is a poor idea.

See
https://www.steinmann.uni-bonn.de/institut/bereiche/endogene-prozesse/arbeitsgruppen/strukturgeologie/lehre/aufschluesse-im-rheinland/dachsbusch
for a real example (text in German, but images should be clear).

Triggered by https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1792260#map=18/50.42869/7.23260

Similar examples include
Góra Swiętej Anny / Annaberg
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B3ra_%C5%9Awi%C4%99tej_Anny -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2241712057/history
volcano existed here 27 millions years ago, volcanic cone is fully eroded and
the current hill is made of stones formed in the caldera of the volcano.


Wdżar
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wd%C5%BCar
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/726504503/history
There are volcanic rocks here, mountains looks like a volcanonic cone, called
volcano by some for marketing purposes but there is no reason whatsoever to
describe it as volcano.

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

Re: Tagging remain of extinct volcanoes

Joseph Eisenberg
A natural=volcano is suppose to be a volcanic vent, usually found at the center of a crater.

While it’s common to misuse this tag to mark the highest peak of a mountain of volcanic origin, it would be best to use it for the actual center of the volcanic vent, and use natural=peak for the high point.

Some recently extinct volcanoes might have a visible crater wall or an open vent, is they are low elevation or latitude in areas without glaciers or heavy rainfall (extinct craters usually erode quickly). But it would be most verifiable if only volcanic vents with clear signs of recent activity are tagged.

An eroded remnant of a volcano in Germany which hardly looks like a crater should not be tagged natural=volcano, since the classification as a volcano is based on fieldwork by professional geologists and can’t be confirmed by regular mappers.

Extinct volcanoes might get a tag that could be attached to a natural=peak node; e.g.natural=peak + 
volcano:status=extinct

Joseph

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:19 PM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is it OK to use natural=volcano for remains of volcanoes?

There is volcano:status=extinct but I feel that tagging
volcano-related rocks as volcanoes is a poor idea.

See
https://www.steinmann.uni-bonn.de/institut/bereiche/endogene-prozesse/arbeitsgruppen/strukturgeologie/lehre/aufschluesse-im-rheinland/dachsbusch
for a real example (text in German, but images should be clear).

Triggered by https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1792260#map=18/50.42869/7.23260

Similar examples include
Góra Swiętej Anny / Annaberg
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B3ra_%C5%9Awi%C4%99tej_Anny -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2241712057/history
volcano existed here 27 millions years ago, volcanic cone is fully eroded and
the current hill is made of stones formed in the caldera of the volcano.


Wdżar
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wd%C5%BCar
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/726504503/history
There are volcanic rocks here, mountains looks like a volcanonic cone, called
volcano by some for marketing purposes but there is no reason whatsoever to
describe it as volcano.
_______________________________________________
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: Tagging remain of extinct volcanoes

Paul Allen
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

An eroded remnant of a volcano in Germany which hardly looks like a crater should not be tagged natural=volcano, since the classification as a volcano is based on fieldwork by professional geologists and can’t be confirmed by regular mappers.

Your implied definition of verifiability worries me a little.  It is certainly true that most (but not all)
mappers could not verify, using their own skills, if a particular formation is an extinct volcano.
But you seem to be implying that they cannot use common knowledge.  For example,
Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh is widely known by locals to be the remains of an extinct volcano.
That fact is mentioned in almost all the tourist material about Edinburgh.  The majority of web
pages found by a search for "Arthur's Seat" mention that it is the remains of an extinct
volcano.  Ditto for Castle Rock in Edinburgh, which is the remains of a volcanic plug.

Are you seriously saying that mappers are not permitted to tag anything as an extinct
volcano unless they have the appropriate training in geology?  Are they allowed to ask
geologists?  Are they allowed to look at textbooks and academic papers that are out of
copyright?

You may wish to consider dormant volcanoes too.  And the volcanoes that are considered
active but don't have a visible lake of lava.  If we limit ourselves to what a mapper without
much knowledge of geology can verify for him/herself then we limit the mapping of
volcanoes to those with visible lava lakes.

--
Paul


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

Re: Tagging remain of extinct volcanoes

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

On 25. Jul 2019, at 03:11, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

While it’s common to misuse this tag to mark the highest peak of a mountain of volcanic origin, it would be best to use it for the actual center of the volcanic vent, and use natural=peak for the high point.


maybe it can be both? If it is a polygon it would describe the vent, while a node would mark the highest point?

There could maybe also be vulcanoes that are now a depression rather than a peak (e.g. the thing collapsed)?


and 131 natural=volcanic_vent

I would prefer these tags for explicit vents, as they remove the ambiguity.

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: Tagging remain of extinct volcanoes

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Paul Allen


sent from a phone

> On 25. Jul 2019, at 09:47, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> If we limit ourselves to what a mapper without
> much knowledge of geology can verify for him/herself then we limit the mapping of
> volcanoes to those with visible lava lakes.


In all fields of information where we map you need to have knowledge to understand and describe what you are seeing.

Sometimes more specific knowledge is required, sometimes we consider it general knowledge. If you don’t know traffic rules and signs you can’t verify many road tags or turn restrictions, etc., still we don’t require a driving license from mappers and we don’t bother as long as someone doesn’t change tagging in a field where he doesn’t have the required knowledge.

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

Re: Tagging remain of extinct volcanoes

Joseph Eisenberg
It's fine that some training and knowledge is required to properly tag
features in OSM. For example, it takes some experience or wiki
research to learn the difference between natural=heath (dwarf shrubs)
and natural=scrub (shurbland), or wetland=bog and wetland=marsh.

However, a mapper who visits a particular place, and reads the OSM
wiki carefully, should be able to clearly distinguish between the two
types of vegetation. Similarly, the definition of natural=volcano
should be clear and practical enough to determine.

A mapper doesn't need to be a geologist to know that a mountain is a
volcano if it is active or dormant: climbing up to the crater may
reveal smoking or steaming fumaroles with nasty sulfur odor, and the
shape of the crater or volcanic vent is distinctive.

But even a geologist won't be able to distinguish a heavily-eroded,
extinct volcano by just visiting the area one time. Often this
requires digging into the ground and studying the buried layers of
rock in several locations.

If the only way to know that a certain peak was once formed by
volcanic activity is that you have to go to a library and read an
article in an old geology journal, then we are adding definitions to
tags that don't fit the OSM way of checking for real, current things.

Wikipedia is based on citations of other people's research, and
depends on trusting that the findings of experts in the field are
correct. Original research gets you a warning.

On the contrary OSM is based on real, current, local information that
can be confirmed to be true or false: it's primary research by
ordinary mappers.

Not everything that is published, not everything that can be cited in
Wikipedia, is suitable to be mapped and tagged in OSM.

Joseph

On 7/25/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 25. Jul 2019, at 09:47, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> If we limit ourselves to what a mapper without
>> much knowledge of geology can verify for him/herself then we limit the
>> mapping of
>> volcanoes to those with visible lava lakes.
>
>
> In all fields of information where we map you need to have knowledge to
> understand and describe what you are seeing.
>
> Sometimes more specific knowledge is required, sometimes we consider it
> general knowledge. If you don’t know traffic rules and signs you can’t
> verify many road tags or turn restrictions, etc., still we don’t require a
> driving license from mappers and we don’t bother as long as someone doesn’t
> change tagging in a field where he doesn’t have the required knowledge.
>
> Cheers Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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