Tag:natural=volcano
From OpenStreetMap
|
This Proposal has been marked for a Post-vote clean-up. Click here for list of proposals needing a post-vote clean-up. |
| Other languages: | +/- |
|---|
| English • |
 volcanoback to Key:natural |
|
| Description: Used to mark a volcano. |
| Element: help
|
| Useful combination: |
| Implies: |
| Used combinations in: |
Contents |
Summary
I live in Auckland, a city with approximately 40 dormant volcanoes under it's surface. Many other cities around the world lie on dormant/extinct volcanoes, which are often a tourist attraction.
A second tag is needed to distinguish between active, dormant and extinct, or the first tag could have three variations
e.g. volcano_active, volcano_dormant, volcano_extinct
Tags
Applies to nodes only
- key=natural value=volcano
- key=status value=active|dormant|extinct (optional)
- key=type value=strato|scoria_cone|shield (optional)
- key=ele value=1270 (optional height)
Rendering
Volcanoes could be rendered as equilateral triangles, colours as follows.
active: red
dormant: orange
extinct: black or dark grey
Comments
- I've been mapping volcanos so far as simply as natural=volcano and adding type=active|dormant|extinct if I am sure I know. Both approaches have their advantages. Mine is simpler and avoids people making guesses (an active volcano to me as an ex-geophysicist may be dormant to a layman). Yours is more precise and allows more adventurous rendering. Any other views? Whichever, I'd certainly like to see these being rendered. MikeCollinson 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- That has merit as well. Using the tag without an active/dormant/extinct qualifier could default to....? On the other hand, when does an extinct volcano become a peak/lake? or should it be both at once? Myfanwy 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good questions. I'd default to type=active as that is probably the main reason something gets tagged as natural=volcano. On a general map, I'd render an extinct volcano as a peak (any crater lake would probably be traced in separately anyway) and the information would be there for specialist maps of for any future pop-up description on online maps. MikeCollinson 19:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I also feel natural=volcano is appropriate and that the condition, if it is known or as it changes, goes under status=active|dormant|extinct. active|dormant|extinct=true|yes would also be appropriate. Blackadder 08:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- We should avoid having too much "top level" tags (e.g. makes it difficult to remember), so having natural=volcano and describe the current state with a second tag might be a good idea. I would also prefer something like active=yes to tag the state. I don't think a default value makes a lot of sense, so not tagging the state means "I don't know". Will this tag only apply to nodes (like the peak one does) or do we need to tag also areas that way? Will it replace the peak tag for a volcano (in this case, we need those additional tags like elevation)? -- Ulfl 09:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- yes to all ulf's points. one thing that has occurred to me: a volcano is not necessasarily a peak. lake pupuke in auckland has a crater rim that is level with the surrounding land - i.e. a volcano can also be a peak, or not. so, the elevation need not be added to volcano. i don't think the area tag is needed - if it is worthy of being an area, then it will also be something else (e.g. a lake), tagging an area with two types sounds like we're asking for trouble Myfanwy 10:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- to mikecollinson: is there any more info we need to add? are there types of volcano? Myfanwy 10:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- The main classifications are its activity (active|dormant|extinct) and the geological type (stratovolcano|scoria cone|shield volcano) - on the surface, this basically controls its shape - I found a good summary at http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Volcano_types.html . If any anyone gets seriously into locally mapping volcanos, we might want something to mark geysers, fumaroles and craters. Me, I'll be happy with natural=volcano! I think it is a good guiding principle, as Ulfl suggests, to have an easy-use-basic tag and then other tags for specialists and devotees. MikeCollinson 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- great! i'll add those in as optional extra tags then. can't have too much info... Myfanwy 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- in retrospect, should we scrap the whole volcano tag, and introduce something called 'geothermal site'? with sub-sets of 'volcano', and i'm guessing here, but things like 'geyser', 'mud pools' (technical name?), 'fumaroles', etc? and then have sub-types to define shape, activity, etc.? what do you think, too complicated, should they all have their own tags Myfanwy 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that the basic volcano tag should be left in place as it is a very important general feature. But I think you very definitely have something. Let's open up a separate proposal for a geology=tag ? That would cover the interesting fun things like geology=geyser but also opens up a whole new field of OSM mapping as nodes, ways and areas. There are thousands of interesting rock features if you just know where to look: faults, synclines, rock outcrops of a particular type ... Oh, and we could still use geology=volcano in conjunction with the type tags proposed. MikeCollinson 12:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- in retrospect, should we scrap the whole volcano tag, and introduce something called 'geothermal site'? with sub-sets of 'volcano', and i'm guessing here, but things like 'geyser', 'mud pools' (technical name?), 'fumaroles', etc? and then have sub-types to define shape, activity, etc.? what do you think, too complicated, should they all have their own tags Myfanwy 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- great! i'll add those in as optional extra tags then. can't have too much info... Myfanwy 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the status and type tags should be namespaced. volcano:status and volcano:type. Otherwise those tags are far too generic. --Hawke 09:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- is that necessarily a problem? what potential issues do you see if we use generic keys? Myfanwy 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- it means that only one key gets to use the "type" and "status" tags. For example, what if there's a key "peak" or a key "mountain" which also has a type and status? They would conflict. --Hawke 13:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- that's true, they may have the same key but that does not necessarily mean they would conflict. if i wanted to select only volcanoes which are dormant, i can use the 'volcano' tag to select all volcanoes, then i would use a filter to select those of status 'dormant' within that selection set. yes, a user could select everything with a 'type' tag, but that would be not really useful (as far as i can see), even if the tag were used for just one class of element. your point seems to have hypothetical benefit, but nothing i can see that would be useful in a practical sense. can you describe an actual situation where this has/may cause some issues? the downside to your suggestion is that key names become ever more complicated and long. if this is a worthy idea, IMO it needs a well-laid out piece on a dedicated page, explaining it's pros and cons, as it affects a huge number of items, including highways ('ref' tag). i will be glad to join the discussion there and vote to modify keys as necessary if your idea becomes common practice.Myfanwy 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have any in-use examples (except for the 'ref' tag which you mentioned...and its problems aren't at all the same as this). As I said, I could envision a 'peak' or a 'mountain' having a type or status tag which would conflict with that of a volcano. I mostly just think it would be wise to be careful about using extremely generic tags. (And IMO, knowing that everything beginning "volcano:" has to do with a volcano rather than having to examine another tag to see what this 'type' tag means is a worthwhile benefit as well) --Hawke 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- that's true, they may have the same key but that does not necessarily mean they would conflict. if i wanted to select only volcanoes which are dormant, i can use the 'volcano' tag to select all volcanoes, then i would use a filter to select those of status 'dormant' within that selection set. yes, a user could select everything with a 'type' tag, but that would be not really useful (as far as i can see), even if the tag were used for just one class of element. your point seems to have hypothetical benefit, but nothing i can see that would be useful in a practical sense. can you describe an actual situation where this has/may cause some issues? the downside to your suggestion is that key names become ever more complicated and long. if this is a worthy idea, IMO it needs a well-laid out piece on a dedicated page, explaining it's pros and cons, as it affects a huge number of items, including highways ('ref' tag). i will be glad to join the discussion there and vote to modify keys as necessary if your idea becomes common practice.Myfanwy 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- it means that only one key gets to use the "type" and "status" tags. For example, what if there's a key "peak" or a key "mountain" which also has a type and status? They would conflict. --Hawke 13:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
When looking at wikipedia I see an attibute "Last Eruption" which could be used to indicate activity of a volcano (last_eruption:1880). When would you say an volcano is active? --katpatuka 11:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Vote
- I approve this proposal. I've also added the ele tag like it's used for peaks. -- Ulfl 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Myfanwy 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Skywave 19:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Davidearl 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Beej71 21:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Franc 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- MikeCollinson 10:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- ramack 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- EdoM (lets talk about it) 23:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Colin Marquardt 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disapprove of this usage of 'status' and 'type tags. --Hawke 09:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Franc 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Eimai 21:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Cohort 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Florianschmitt 06:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disapprove of this usage of 'status' and 'type tags. -- Pieren 11:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
voting is now closed, this proposal has been approved Myfanwy 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
