On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> 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 Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
