[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Jun 26 10:23:10 UTC 2020
Am Mo., 22. Juni 2020 um 09:32 Uhr schrieb Joseph Guillaume <
josephguillaume at gmail.com>:
> I suppose the reason I haven't provided an example is that historically
> significant qanats are the exception in my opinion - in most cases I can't
> think of a reason why it should be listed as historic other than being old.
> So here's a random one:
This would imply "historic" is for things of exceptional historical value,
it is not how I read the tag. Almost every man made structure that is
"old", has endured the times and is still here, does have some importance
as testimony of former times. Any archaeological site is "historic" (any
"old" wall from hundreds of years ago). Imagine how much dedication and
effort is needed to only manually dig underground channels (even with
mechanized tools it is a great effort) even leaving aside the work to
secure them in order to prevent them from collapsing. E.g. any roman road
that is still perceivable is of historical value, but of course someone
could also dismiss it as just a bunch of stones someone amassed a few
thousand years ago ;-) Things do not have to be the pyramids of Gizeh or
the colossus of Rhodes or the hanging gardens of Babylon in order to
"merit" the "historic" tag, IMHO.
On the other hand, if there are also recent kanats that are built in a
different way (e.g. from the 60ies, built with modern tunnel driving and
constructed in reinforced concrete), I agree that "historic" would seem a
less intuitive tag for them. I do not insist in using historic=aqueduct
plus subtag for kanat, it just seems suitable from what is already
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging