[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"
walker.t.bradley at gmail.com
Fri Jun 26 16:11:05 UTC 2020
I concur that historic or heritage should be secondary tags.
Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution. Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead. Thoughts?
>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:27, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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).
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging