[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 26 15:26:04 UTC 2020


On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley <walker.t.bradley at gmail.com>
wrote:

> So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate
> sub-tags for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat,
> tunnel=yes.
>

That's how I see it.  Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong.
So
if we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic
qanats by adding historic=yes.

>
> I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what
> criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.
>

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it
needs
modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for
man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats.

If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's
historic.
If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic.  Which
isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag
shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat)
over historic=qanat).

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200626/d1882a55/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list