Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[John Willis via Tagging]

> 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. 

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

FWIW, here is a query results map showing all volcanoes (805 of them) in
Wikidata that already have the GVP ID:
https://query.wikidata.org/embed.html#%23defaultView%3AMap%0ASELECT%20DISTINCT%20%3Fvolcano%20%3FvolcanoLabel%20%3FGVPID%20%3Fcoords%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22%5BAUTO_LANGUAGE%5D%2Cen%22.%20%7D%0A%20%20%3Fvolcano%20wdt%3AP31%2Fwdt%3AP279%2a%20wd%3AQ8072%3B%20wdt%3AP1886%20%3FGVPID%3B%20wdt%3AP625%20%3Fcoords.%0A%7D%0A

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 7:26 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> 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 and maybe understand some, but how Wikidata works is beyond my
>> comprehension :)
>>
>
> Go to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q594387 and search the page for
> "smithsonian."   You see Smithsonian volcano ID 321010.  Dunno if that's
> been there for a long time or somebody just added it in response to your
> post
> here.
>
> Explaining how to add those iDs to other Wikidata volcanoes is beyond the
> scope of this response. :)
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

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 indicate that a wider area than is indicated in
> GVP/wikipedia/wikidata, but much more often an OSMer will be tagging an
> individual volcano that might not match where a historical eruption took
> place (think Thera / Santorini, where a famous eruption left a big hole,
> now surrounded by numerous modern features).
>

Santorini is listed in GVP's database. See
http://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=212040. There was an eruption in 1950.
Though this isn't the same as to what you were referring to.

>
> It does make sense to use (and document) GVP's "active" definition in
> OSM, but there will be places in OSM where it's not a good fit, because
> what was there that erupted earlier in the last few thousand years isn't
> there now.
>

GVP also has a Pleistocene Volcano List for volcanoes that erupted during
the Pleistocene period. They consider this database preliminary.

>

>
> --
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Andy Townsend]

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 rather than a wikipedian, that might as well 
have been written in Klingon. :)


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 indicate that a wider area than is indicated in 
GVP/wikipedia/wikidata, but much more often an OSMer will be tagging an 
individual volcano that might not match where a historical eruption took 
place (think Thera / Santorini, where a famous eruption left a big hole, 
now surrounded by numerous modern features).


It does make sense to use (and document) GVP's "active" definition in 
OSM, but there will be places in OSM where it's not a good fit, because 
what was there that erupted earlier in the last few thousand years isn't 
there now.


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Paul Allen]

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 and maybe understand some, but how Wikidata works is beyond my
> comprehension :)
>

Go to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q594387 and search the page for
"smithsonian."   You see Smithsonian volcano ID 321010.  Dunno if that's
been there for a long time or somebody just added it in response to your
post
here.

Explaining how to add those iDs to other Wikidata volcanoes is beyond the
scope of this response. :)

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

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 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 and maybe understand some, but how Wikidata works is beyond my
comprehension :)


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

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 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?
>
>> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Paul Allen]

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 sub-optimal.  It also
means more effort by the data consumer to find if the volcano is active or
not:
go to the wikidata page, search the wikidata page to find the GVP link, go
to
the GVP page.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

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?

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Jez Nicholson]

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
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Paul Allen]

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

[Clifford Snow]

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] would be
considered "active" -- which I know is confusing since no Cascade volcanoes
are currently erupting or experiencing significant unrest.  "Active" more
speaks to whether the volcano could erupt again (and hence is still alive,
or "active"), which is judged by whether it has erupted in the Holocene as
well as whether there are signs of life (earthquakes under the volcano,
degassing, deformation, etc.).

The GVP also has a series of tags for things like primary volcano type,
last known eruption, activity evidence, dominant rock type, etc. Having the
GVP hyperlink volcano number would also allow users to see more detail
about each volcano.


I like the suggestion of having a link to GVP article. It's worth noting
that we can not use the information contained in GVP articles because of
licensing incompatibilities. GVP restricts use to non-commercial use and
requires attribution. I have reached out to GVP to discuss linking to their
database.

My recommendation would be to not to expand volcano:status=active to as it
is today. If we can link to the GVP database it would allow data consumers
the ability to quickly gather the most recent information, much like the
wikipedia/wikidata tags do today.

[1] Holocene definition, for us non geologist, according to Wikipedia "The
Holocene is the current geological epoch. It began approximately 11,650 cal
years before present, after the last glacial period, which concluded with
the Holocene glacial retreat."

Best,
Clifford

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:05 AM Mark Wagner  wrote:

> 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 in the last 200 years
> > >
> > > Perhaps it is easier to just apply the “active” and “Frequently
> > > active” tags via this third-party data source,
> >
> > "frequently active " means what?
> >
> > If it erupted last year .. but not for 200 years before that I'd not
> > call it 'frequent'.
> >
> >
> > > but it would completely remove mapper’s ability to add a mountain
> > > to this list via tagging.
> >
> >
> > Possibly "last_eruption=" if that is what you want???
> >
>
> "last_eruption" isn't that useful for determining activity: the
> majority of the world's volcanoes are cinder cones, which almost never
> erupt twice or more.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Mark Wagner]

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 in the last 200 years
> >
> > Perhaps it is easier to just apply the “active” and “Frequently 
> > active” tags via this third-party data source,  
> 
> "frequently active " means what?
> 
> If it erupted last year .. but not for 200 years before that I'd not 
> call it 'frequent'.
> 
> 
> > but it would completely remove mapper’s ability to add a mountain
> > to this list via tagging.  
> 
> 
> Possibly "last_eruption=" if that is what you want???
> 

"last_eruption" isn't that useful for determining activity: the
majority of the world's volcanoes are cinder cones, which almost never
erupt twice or more.

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Mark Wagner]

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  > > 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
> > 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.  
> 
> 
> 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???
> 

This isn't a very useful tag for deciding if a volcano is active: most
eruptions produce steam explosions or ash columns, not lava flows.
There are three or maybe four volcanoes in the world that have
persistent lava lakes right now (Erta Ale is a bit hazardous to
survey), and I think just one that's producing long-lived lava flows.

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Paul Allen]

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 that list).

However, the second of those links does give some meaningful, mappable
distinctions: stratovolcano, shield, lava dome, caldera, lava cone, etc.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Warin]

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 “Frequently 
active” tags via this third-party data source,


"frequently active " means what?

If it erupted last year .. but not for 200 years before that I'd not 
call it 'frequent'.



but it would completely remove mapper’s ability to add a mountain to 
this list via tagging.



Possibly "last_eruption=" if that is what you want???


What is really wanted is "next eruption=" and know one knows that :(


Possibly the things OSM can verify are

last_eruption=*

lava=yes/no


Is there anything else easily verifiable? And the next question is - who 
is going to use that data?




Inventing a separate schema seems like a bad idea, but I don’t think 
people understand “active” could mean an eruption before the 
industrial revolution, and people seem to want to add more granularity 
to this data. Maybe that is a bad idea, but should be considered.


Javbw

On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 wrote:






On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> 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 1428? :-)

https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=eov_noteworthy

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[John Willis via Tagging]

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, but it would completely remove mapper’s 
ability to add a mountain to this list via tagging. 

Inventing a separate schema seems like a bad idea, but I don’t think people 
understand “active” could mean an eruption before the industrial revolution, 
and people seem to want to add more granularity to this data. Maybe that is a 
bad idea, but should be considered. 

Javbw

> On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 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 1428? :-)
>> 
>> https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=eov_noteworthy  
>> 
>> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 1428? :-)
>
> https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=eov_noteworthy
>
> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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
> 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.
>
>
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 1428? :-)

https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=eov_noteworthy

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Warin]

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 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
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.



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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

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 = 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
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[John Willis via Tagging]

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  wrote:
> 
> As a person living 50km from an "active"  but dormant volcano, Mount Baker 
> [1], I definitely know its status.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Paul Allen]

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 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
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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Kevin Kenny]

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 idea out of hand.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Paul Allen]

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 widely available).  But
"active" is too broad a term to be meaningful, I think.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

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 
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
>  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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Mark Wagner]

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 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Kevin Kenny]

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.
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 - 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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, <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Alessandro Sarretta]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Christoph Hormann]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Cascafico Giovanni]

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 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"  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Kevin Kenny]

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 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Christoph Hormann]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 2020, 14:04 by cascaf...@gmail.com:

> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Cascafico Giovanni]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging