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
sent from a phone
> On 25. Jul 2019, at 09:47, Paul Allen 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 y
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Joseph Eisenberg
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
sent from a phone
> On 25. Jul 2019, at 03:11, Joseph Eisenberg
> 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.
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 poin
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-rh
