Proposal talk:Fumarole

Areas

Resolved

I think it should be stated that it can be mapped as an area if the fumarole is big enough to do so. That way wouldn't be so much ambiguous about whether to map as points and/or areas. --AntMadeira (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

+1, also if many fumaroles are nearby each other and form a field - then, having to tag each single fumarole is tedious, sometimes fields are not allowed or dangerous to enter for mapping, or the steam changes over time from which of the fumarole openings it emits. --Schoschi (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, I've updated the page to allow areas --Kylenz (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

natural or geological?

Resolved

Let's collectively create a list of arguments speaking for/against one of the two. --Schoschi (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Pro Key:geological

• The older, inactive proposal Proposed features/Volcanic features points at a consistent tagging scheme for "all" volcanic features and also that they can be combined with other keys/values - also from Key:natural like cliff. It contains geological=volcanic_fumarole which is used in the wild, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3605875002 (Námafjall). In case the proposal will be re-activated & approved, we had less work (editor presets, wiki descriptions, dead links from external sites, changes in implementations & data consumers & QA tools,...) if this current proposal would already use the same key-value-pair.
• please add

Pro Key:natural

• Some volcanic/geothermal features already exist under natural=*, such as volcano, hot_spring, geyser. It may be controversial to deprecate these tags in favour of geological=*. Or if these tags are not depreacted, then there would be a split between natural and geological
• please add

Balanced

• Key:natural contains related features like e.g. geyser and same applies to Key:geological e.g. volcanic_vent, so good arguments exist for both to contain fumaroles.
• Both https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/geological=volcanic_fumarole and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=fumarole have <100 uses, so it's low effort to convert any of the two
• One agreed tagging scheme is better (read: easier to convert) than "wild" tagging in case we later decide to move into the other tag.
• please add

---

The geological proposal looks promising, although the term volcanic_fumarole seems redundant. Why not just fumarole? Then the only question here would be geological=fumarole vs natural=fumarole. I'm not sure which is better --Kylenz (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

They should go under "natural", since that's where the other two major families of geothermal features (hot springs and geysers) are. --Carnildo (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

At the moment I think natural=* is the best choice, to be consistent with existing features. That way, all geothermal features are under natural=*, and all volcanic features are under geological=* if that abandoned proposal gets revived.

Geothermal	natural=geyser natural=hot_spring natural=fumarole
Geological (abandoned proposal)	geological=volcanic_lava_field geological=volcanic_lava_flow geological=volcanic_lava_channel geological=volcanic_lava_tube geological=volcanic_caldera_rim geological=volcanic_vent

Does anyone disagree with the choice to use natural=*?

--Kylenz (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I've marked this as resolved, if anyone has further thoughts feel free to unresolve --Kylenz (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)