anduse=basin (or if you prefer water=basin)
> with basin=detention or basin=infiltration?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir)
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:
This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.
It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.
I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being sure
what subtag to use.
I now think
The statement I disagree with is that "We shouldn’t be in a situation where
there is no approved way to map a mapable feature just because the
community doesn’t agree completely on how to map it."
Nobody needs approval to map anything in OSM, so approval only really
matters when there is a
=554179257#map=17/33.44256/50.80580
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:24 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Jun 2020, at 00:07, Joseph Guillaume
> wrote:
> >
> > only some qanats are of historic value
>
>
> while I don’t think the
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
Agreed, but just to be clear as it applies to this proposal, in
OpenStreetMap-land, that ship has sailed.
A canal describes "An artificial open flow waterway used to carry useful
water for transportation, waterpower, or irrigation"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dcanal
We've
Hi Martin,
I may not fully understand the historic tag, but to me it is unlikely that
every qanat is of historic interest, "of sufficient importance to justify
use of this tag". In some areas, every village has three qanats. It would
be like mapping every fountain as historic.
They're often not
Hi Martin,
> for me „historic“ does not necessarily imply it is not active.
That's right - what I meant is that we should not treat every qanat as
historic just because it is old.
So we need to map the fact there is a qanat, and then someone with local
knowledge needs to map whether it is
, but
historic=aqueduct is not appropriate.
Cheers,
Joseph
On Sat., 20 Jun. 2020, 9:36 am Martin Koppenhoefer,
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 20. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Joseph Guillaume
> wrote:
>
> I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about
Hi all,
I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about whether to
tag qanats - it's about whether to tag them with man_made=qanat or
waterway=canal+canal=qanat.
There's already 1000 tagged, and they're very patchy geographically. It's
quite likely there's upwards of 100,000
It
Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 5:09 PM Joseph Guillaume
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to map some qanats, underground channels for conveying
> groundwater that have vertical excavation shafts visible from the
> surface/aerial imagery (see proposal for example).
>
> This was previo
Hi,
I'm planning to map some qanats, underground channels for conveying
groundwater that have vertical excavation shafts visible from the
surface/aerial imagery (see proposal for example).
This was previously discussed in 2013.
Since then, the role of different waterway tags has been clarified,
12 matches
Mail list logo
