[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

[Joseph Guillaume]

Hi all,

I've been in touch with the person who's mapped a lot of the
waterway=canal+man_made=canal, and they didn't have any specific rationale.

After seeing the proposal page, their preferred tagging is:

canal=qanat
elevation=-3
layer=-3
location=underground
name=Bir.1.2
status=abandoned or active
tunnel=flooded
waterway=canal

I'm not sure how to check how many other people have been mapping
man_made=qanat, but as someone who's mapped a lot of canal=qanat, I'm happy
to proceed with that as a new de facto.

I'm happy to still go to a vote if Jeisenbe would like, but I don't
personally feel comfortable mapping either man_made=qanat (too generic,
doesn't fit with waterways) or historic=aqueduct+aqueduct=qanat (visions of
Roman aqueducts don't sit well with me in this case - only some qanats are
of historic value).

Thanks for the interesting discussion,

JoeG



On Sun., 21 Jun. 2020, 4:44 am Joseph Eisenberg, <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Most existing uses of man_made=qanat by the way are in combination with
> waterway=canal.
>
> Thank you for mentioning this. There are only 5 ways with man_made=qanat,
> without waterway=* - https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Viq
>
> I will update the proposal page with this information.
>
> So there is no debate about whether or not to tag these features with
> waterway=canal.
>
> We are deciding whether or not the additional tag should be man_made=qanat
> or canal=qanat.
>
> Since waterway=canal is currently used for all kinds of irrigation canals
> and aqueducts, it makes sense to consider these irrigation features to be a
> type of canal.
>
> I have previously considered whether or not it might be sensible to create
> a whole new value of waterway=* for aqueducts and irrigation canals, but
> that does not seem to solve any particular problems: irrigation canals can
> be as narrow as 20 cm or as wide as 20 meters, as can aqueducts used for
> drinking water, so tagging usage=irrigation and width=*, while using the
> existing main tag, is probably reasonable.
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:17 AM Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think this is a good idea.  Both in the sense of establishing a
>> distinct tagging for it that does not engross qanats with other types of
>> underground waterways and in the sense of using a non-English and
>> non-European term where the most descriptive and clear term comes from a
>> non-European language.  We have other cases of such tags in OSM but still
>> in a proposal process which is dominantly discussed in English this is rare
>> and kind of a litmus test for how culturally diverse tagging in OSM can be
>> and if the cultural geography of non-European regions can be mapped in the
>> classifications used locally just as we are used to doing it in Europe and
>> North America.
>>
>> Most existing uses of man_made=qanat by the way are in combination with
>> waterway=canal.
>>
>> --
>> Christoph Hormann
>> http://www.imagico.de/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200622/d010cac5/attachment-0001.htm>