[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

Joseph Guillaume josephguillaume at gmail.com
Sat Jun 20 00:08:52 UTC 2020


Hi Martin,

Thanks for engaging!

I don't think it's appropriate to tag them all as historic=aqueduct. That
would be like tagging canals in Europe as historic just because they were
built a long time ago. There are active efforts to maintain and restore
qanats/kariz in Afghanistan that have been destroyed or neglected due to
fighting, and there's increased attention to the fact that pumping as an
alternative lends itself to overextraction of groundwater and high energy
use.

It's also very difficult to tell whether a qanat is operational or not from
aerial imagery, so in most cases without local knowledge it's safest to map
it based on its physical features, i.e. it is a qanat, and somebody else
needs to map whether it is historical or active.
If you consider that waterway=canal should only be used for active canals,
that would be a vote in favour of the more generic man_made=qanat, but
historic=aqueduct is not appropriate.

Cheers,

Joseph





On Sat., 20 Jun. 2020, 9:36 am Martin Koppenhoefer, <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 20. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Joseph Guillaume <josephguillaume at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about whether
> to tag qanats - it's about whether to tag them with man_made=qanat or
> waterway=canal+canal=qanat.
>
> There's already 1000 tagged, and they're very patchy geographically. It's
> quite likely there's upwards of 100,000
>
> It would be great to be able to formally deprecate man_made=qanat before
> it becomes de facto.
>
> Hopefully we can get enough interest in this issue for the vote to be
> convincing.
>
>
>
> The issue with waterway=qanat could be that it is only applicable to those
> structures that still carry water, while many of them will not be in a
> working state, or maybe I’m misguided?
>
> I could imagine using historic=aqueduct with a subtag aqueduct=qanat for
> all of them, and add the waterway tag to distinguish working from
> nonworking?
>
> I’ve found a short article about these in Bal‘harm, a city in Sicily which
> is now better known by its current name Palermo:
> http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art154.htm
>
> There’s a map that suggests there are really a lot of these underground
> tunnels, but the article also states that most aren’t in a working
> condition:
>
> In fact, fresh water still flows through some of the channels. Several
> were still in use well into the sixteenth century, long after the Arabs had
> melded into the general Sicilian population
>
>
> Cheers Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200620/1495432e/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list