On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 20:44, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen <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. 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
