[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Mon Jun 22 01:50:08 UTC 2020


Thank you, I had intended to try to find out who was using that tag,
myself, so it was very helpful to contact them.

Glad to hear that the mappers using man_made=qanat are happy to change to
this tag.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 3:07 PM Joseph Guillaume <josephguillaume at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200621/dd8d366f/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list