[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Jun 20 09:36:29 UTC 2020
On 20/6/20 9:35 am, Martin Koppenhoefer 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
> 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
The use of the lifecycle prefixes should be used.
disused:*=* for things that can easily be put back into use.
abandoned:*=* for things that require a lot of work and $ to be put back
and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging