date:20200620

> In case of a well, as the aquifer is below your starting point, I’d think
you would need some kind of pump and not just gravity (at the beginning)?

Look at the diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat#/media/File:Qanat-3.svg or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat#/media/File:Qanat_cross_section.svg

The first part of qanat, on the uphill side, is alway slightly higher than
the point where it exits the hill. The water flows downhill by gravity. The
channel is usually tall enough to at least partially stand up, since it was
dug by people with hand tools.

The first shaft might be quite deep, and may have originally been dug as a
well prior to being turning into a qanat, but in some cases the whole
system was built at once.

> I think I would remove the word “pipe” in the paragraph that explains
free flow,  because I believe you can have “free flow” in pipes, but I am
not sure of both, the definitions of free flow and pipe.

A qanat is not built with pipes or a pipeline for transmission of the water.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:31 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 20. Jun 2020, at 20:39, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>
>- The immediate source of water is groundwater (aquifer or well), not
>a spring, stream or river
>- Water flows by gravity in free flow (not pressurized or pipe flow)
>- The channel is underground (minimising evaporation)
>- Construction and maintenance is through vertical shafts, which are
>then visible on the surface
>
>
>
> according to pictures I found they are tall enough so that a person can
> walk inside?
>
> In other types of aqueducts the water channel is often enclosed/inside
> pipes so that evaporation shouldn’t be an issue either, but the underground
> position will keep the water more chilled in a qanat.
>
>
> In case of a well, as the aquifer is below your starting point, I’d think
> you would need some kind of pump and not just gravity (at the beginning)?
>
> They are clearly not pressurized, but this is common for sewer pipes as
> well (i.e. the same kind of “free flow” in pipes, not sure about the
> definition of pipe, couldn’t you call a qanat also a kind of “pipe”?) I
> think I would remove the word “pipe” in the paragraph that explains free
> flow,  because I believe you can have “free flow” in pipes, but I am not
> sure of both, the definitions of free flow and pipe.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"



sent from a phone

> On 21. Jun 2020, at 01:59, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
>> Can there be old underground water conveying structures that people have dug 
>> into the ground, that are not “historic”? Can you explain what kind of 
>> situation you are thinking about?
> 
> The tag historic=* is not a synonym for old.  It is more nuanced than that.  
> See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic


I am aware of the historic key and its meaning and my question stands.
How or in which cases can a structure like this not be suitable for the 
historic key?

Cheers Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 00:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> I do not follow. Can there be old underground water conveying structures
> that people have dug into the ground, that are not “historic”? Can you
> explain what kind of situation you are thinking about?
>

The tag historic=* is not a synonym for old.  It is more nuanced than
that.  See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

sent from a phone

> On 20. Jun 2020, at 09:33, Joseph Guillaume  wrote:
> 
> That's right - what I meant is that we should not treat every qanat as 
> historic just because it is old.

I do not follow. Can there be old underground water conveying structures that 
people have dug into the ground, that are not “historic”? Can you explain what 
kind of situation you are thinking about?

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

sent from a phone

>> On 20. Jun 2020, at 20:39, Joseph Eisenberg  
>> wrote:
> The immediate source of water is groundwater (aquifer or well), not a spring, 
> stream or river
> Water flows by gravity in free flow (not pressurized or pipe flow)
> The channel is underground (minimising evaporation)
> Construction and maintenance is through vertical shafts, which are then 
> visible on the surface

according to pictures I found they are tall enough so that a person can walk 
inside?

In other types of aqueducts the water channel is often enclosed/inside pipes so 
that evaporation shouldn’t be an issue either, but the underground position 
will keep the water more chilled in a qanat.

In case of a well, as the aquifer is below your starting point, I’d think you 
would need some kind of pump and not just gravity (at the beginning)?

They are clearly not pressurized, but this is common for sewer pipes as well 
(i.e. the same kind of “free flow” in pipes, not sure about the definition of 
pipe, couldn’t you call a qanat also a kind of “pipe”?) I think I would remove 
the word “pipe” in the paragraph that explains free flow,  because I believe 
you can have “free flow” in pipes, but I am not sure of both, the definitions 
of free flow and pipe.

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick

Certainly milk churns in Australia - at least to this Older English
Speaker! :-), even though TBMK they are no longer actually used.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-20 Thread Volker Schmidt

To my memory, these platforms for milk "container" collection are still in
active daily use at least in some parts northern Italy, and,  I think,
other parts of the Alps. So it is important not to make the tag "historic"
only. In some parts of Germany there used to be one-per-village small
buildings where the farmers would deposit their milk cans.I don't if any of
these are still active, but I imagine that same are still present as small
buildings.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020, 20:44 Paul Allen,  wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:32, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree with mapping these as man_made=milk_churn_stand and adding
>> disused=yes when this is known, since a used vs disused stone or concrete
>> stand will look exactly the same.
>>
>
> The two will look different when milk churns are put on the stand for
> collection.
>
> However, in the UK they are all disused (as far as their original purpose
> goes).
> Surprisingly (to me) EU regulations still permit milk to be transported in
> churns
> but they must have some means of refrigeration so I doubt this happens in
> many places (the EU regulations mention "in-container refrigeration" which
> probably wouldn't fit in the old-style churns).
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Niels Elgaard Larsen

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:35:43 +0100
Paul Allen  wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:24, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree with this, maybe we can make the description even more
>> explicit to underline that these are specific features with a
>> specific temporal and cultural background and formal solution, not
>> just any underground aqueducts.  
>
>
>I'm not sure that we can, or should, map cultural background. 


I agree.

The Wikipedia article mentions quanats in Italy, Luxembourg, China,
Chile, etc. And who knows maybe someone will build quanats other places
in the future.

Just as biergarten might be german culture, but we use all over the
world:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=biergarten


> Nor
>should two
>identical POIs be tagged differently because of the date they were
>constructed
>(other than tagging one as historical or adding a date).  For me the
>thing about
>qanats is that they differ in several significant ways from "ordinary"
>underground
>aqueducts and we shouldn't force square pegs into round holes.
>
>
>> It’s a tag in arab language because it was developed in Persia and
>> brought into the territories that “they“ settled/conquered.
>>  
>
>That happens to be why the British English name for them is "qanat."
>Had the British managed to colonialize a different part of the world
>first they might
>have had a different name in British English.  The tag is in British
>English,
>which just happens to be the same as the Arabic name for the feature.
>
>For me, it deserves a different method of tagging from somewhat similar
>objects because it is a different thing.  The name used for the tag is
>taken from the British English name for the thing if British English
>has a name for it, otherwise we argue and bicker for a week or two
>here before settling on the local name. :)
>


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Niels Elgaard Larsen

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:16:52 +0100
Philip Barnes  wrote:

>On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 15:42 +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
>> 
>> And we already have plenty of those:
>> 
>> Piste
>> Gabion
>> Kindergarten
>> chicane
>> kneipp_water_cure
>> bureau_de_change
>> aikido
>> krachtbal
>> boules
>> futsal
>> adit
>> gasometer
>> 
>Bungalow
>Robot


Bugalow i knew.
But now I learned that shop=robot is in the wiki.


>and sometimes British and American English borrow from different
>languages
>Courgette - Zuccini which is one I know
>Aubergine 


Yes, but they are not in the wiki.

building=terrace
is an example of the British english version.


>In terms of food a lot of words are borrowed from different languages
>and combined with a strange measuring system makes American recipies
>totally baffling.
>
>Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

2020-06-20 Thread Toggenburger Lukas

Hidde, good links you posted!

I started with a pull request for Vespucci: 
https://github.com/simonpoole/beautified-JOSM-preset/pull/187

I will continue with pull requests for the other editors...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Philip Barnes

On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 15:42 +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
> 
> And we already have plenty of those:
> 
> Piste
> Gabion
> Kindergarten
> chicane
> kneipp_water_cure
> bureau_de_change
> aikido
> krachtbal
> boules
> futsal
> adit
> gasometer
> 
Bungalow
Robot

and sometimes British and American English borrow from different
languages
Courgette - Zuccini which is one I know

Aubergine 

In terms of food a lot of words are borrowed from different languages
and combined with a strange measuring system makes American recipies
totally baffling.

Phil (trigpoint)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:32, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> I agree with mapping these as man_made=milk_churn_stand and adding
> disused=yes when this is known, since a used vs disused stone or concrete
> stand will look exactly the same.
>

The two will look different when milk churns are put on the stand for
collection.

However, in the UK they are all disused (as far as their original purpose
goes).
Surprisingly (to me) EU regulations still permit milk to be transported in
churns
but they must have some means of refrigeration so I doubt this happens in
many places (the EU regulations mention "in-container refrigeration" which
probably wouldn't fit in the old-style churns).

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

> 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  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@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

BTW, Arabic is not commonly spoken in Iran (Persia):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Iran

The definition on the proposal page is not limited to a particular culture:
there may be functioning examples of such features in the Americas (built
by the Spanish due to influence from Morocco). The definition is based on
particular physical characteristics, which are commonly found mostly in
West and Central Asia and North Africa to be sure:

The tag canal=qanat (+ waterway=canal + tunnel=*) is for "A gently-sloping
man-made underground channel for transporting groundwater via gravity, with
shafts visible from the surface" where:
- The immediate source of water is groundwater (aquifer or well), not a
spring, stream or river
- Water flows by gravity in free flow (not pressurized or pipe flow)
- The channel is underground (minimising evaporation)
- Construction and maintenance is through vertical shafts, which are then
visible on the surface

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:24 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:17, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> I agree with this, maybe we can make the description even more explicit to
> underline that these are specific features with a specific temporal and
> cultural background and formal solution, not just any underground
> aqueducts. It’s a tag in arab language because it was developed in Persia
> and brought into the territories that “they“ settled/conquered.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:24, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> I agree with this, maybe we can make the description even more explicit to
> underline that these are specific features with a specific temporal and
> cultural background and formal solution, not just any underground aqueducts.

I'm not sure that we can, or should, map cultural background.  Nor should
two
identical POIs be tagged differently because of the date they were
constructed
(other than tagging one as historical or adding a date).  For me the thing
about
qanats is that they differ in several significant ways from "ordinary"
underground
aqueducts and we shouldn't force square pegs into round holes.

> It’s a tag in arab language because it was developed in Persia and brought
> into the territories that “they“ settled/conquered.
>

That happens to be why the British English name for them is "qanat."  Had
the British managed to colonialize a different part of the world first they
might
have had a different name in British English.  The tag is in British
English,
which just happens to be the same as the Arabic name for the feature.

For me, it deserves a different method of tagging from somewhat similar
objects because it is a different thing.  The name used for the tag is
taken from the British English name for the thing if British English has a
name for it, otherwise we argue and bicker for a week or two here before
settling on the local name. :)

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

> I think if any I would use disused=yes as they still remain „operational“
I guess, although not actually used.
> The disused:key=value style seems more appropriate for functions (amenity
etc.) than for physical descriptions (man_made).

+1

I agree with mapping these as man_made=milk_churn_stand and adding
disused=yes when this is known, since a used vs disused stone or concrete
stand will look exactly the same.

As mentioned by Paul, if there is a rotten wooden stand which is falling
apart, that could be "abandoned=yes" since it couldn't be used without
major remodeling / repairs.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:08 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:44, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > They should probably have disused=yes or a disused lifecycle
> > prefix (cue endless arguments about which) except in parts of the world
> > where they actually are still in use (if they are).
>
> I think if any I would use disused=yes as they still remain „operational“
> I guess, although not actually used.
> The disused:key=value style seems more appropriate for functions (amenity
> etc.) than for physical descriptions (man_made).
>
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:44, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > They should probably have disused=yes or a disused lifecycle
> > prefix (cue endless arguments about which) except in parts of the world
> > where they actually are still in use (if they are).
>
> I think if any I would use disused=yes as they still remain „operational“
> I guess, although not actually used.
>

True of brick/concrete/stone.  For wooden ones that are decaying,
abandoned=yes
may be more appropriate.  I've not had chance to take a look myself yet (and
won't be able to look until there's a vaccine) but sources I cannot use for
mapping indicate that the one nearest to me, embedded in a bank, has had
the bank reshaped to cover the top of it (only the side is visible).  Using
abandoned=yes in such cases would seem appropriate.

The disused:key=value style seems more appropriate for functions (amenity
> etc.) than for physical descriptions (man_made).
>

That is how I interpret it, but others on this list have a different
opinion.  However,
I'd go with was:man_made=milk_churn_stand if it had been repurposed
in some way that it merited a different main tag.  A foolish consistency
is the hobgoblin of little minds, according to Ralph Waldo Emerson.

That leaves the question of the name.  For older British English speakers
the
containers are called milk churns, even though they are not for churning
milk.  This may cause confusion to younger speakers of British English
and those for whom English is a second language.  According to the
Wikipedia article these are sometimes referred to as milk cans so
maybe milk_can_stand would be better than milk_churn_stand.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

sent from a phone

> On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:17, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> 
> 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.

I agree with this, maybe we can make the description even more explicit to 
underline that these are specific features with a specific temporal and 
cultural background and formal solution, not just any underground aqueducts. 
It’s a tag in arab language because it was developed in Persia and brought into 
the territories that “they“ settled/conquered.

Cheers Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

sent from a phone

> On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:44, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> They should probably have disused=yes or a disused lifecycle
> prefix (cue endless arguments about which) except in parts of the world
> where they actually are still in use (if they are).

I think if any I would use disused=yes as they still remain „operational“ I 
guess, although not actually used.
The disused:key=value style seems more appropriate for functions (amenity etc.) 
than for physical descriptions (man_made).

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-20 Thread Jez Nicholson

 "It's only been used once so we shouldn't
document it until it becomes popular"

Discuss and use by all means.

Thank you for providing a copy-and-paste response :)

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020, 13:44 Paul Allen,  wrote:

> Recently I was digging for some details of a farm I was mapping and came
> across a map
> of the locations of milk churn stands in the county of Ceredigion.  It
> struck me that we
> should have a way of tagging mllk churn stands.
>
> They are platforms, usually constructed from bricks or concrete,
> occasionally large
> chunks of stone, sometimes made of wood, that are usually located near the
> entrances to farms.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_churn_stand
> and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Milk_churn_stands
>
> I consider them to be mappable because they can aid navigation and can be
> used by
> walkers as improvised tables/seats.  Probably not worth rendering on the
> standard
> map but could be rendered by walking maps.
>
> They came into use in the 19th century and fell into disuse in the UK in
> 1979
> when milk collection was entirely by tanker.  Although the Wikipedia
> article
> mentions only the UK, they were in use in other parts of the world such as
> Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Estonia.  They may still be used in
> 2nd or 3rd world countries.  The purpose was for the farmer to place large
> containers of milk on the stand to  make it easier for them to be
> transferred to a
> cart (later lorry).  Although no longer used in the countries already
> mentioned, they
> are unlikely to be removed because that would take time and money and
> (usually)
> nothing would be gained.
>
> My instinct would be to use man_made=milk_churn_stand.  Checking with
> taginfo shows this has already been used once.  Overpass-turbo shows it
> was used in Germany.  I'm not entirely happy with "milk churn stand" even
> though in British English the milk containers were known as "milk churns"
> despite not being used to churn milk, but I can't think of anything better.
> Etymology of the misleading name is here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_churn
>
> The existing instance I found also included historic=yes.  I don't consider
> that should be used with most milk churn stands as it is not a synonym
> for old or disused but means it is of historical significance (most of
> these
> are not).  They should probably have disused=yes or a disused lifecycle
> prefix (cue endless arguments about which) except in parts of the world
> where they actually are still in use (if they are).
>
> Here's the map I found.  It deals only with the county of Ceredigion and
> the
> person responsible has only dealt with about half of that county so far.
> Until
> and unless I can get a response from him I don't entirely trust the
> accuracy
> of his locations and wouldn't use them anyway because of copyright (unless
> he gave permission and assurances of accuracy).  But his map gives some
> idea
> of the ubiquity of these things.
>
> https://www.lookingformaps.com/mapa.php?mapa=Stondinau-Llaeth-Ceredigion-Milk-Stands-Dr-Roger-Owen-Prifysgol-Aberystwyth-Uni
> Be patient, it takes a while for the map to load.
>
> Why do I bring all this up here?  Because I'd like to document what tag(s)
> to
> use for milk churn stands.  The person who mapped the German one as
> man_made=milk_churn_stand says he mapped another one as
> historic=milk_churn_stand because he wasn't sure of the best way to map
> them.
>
> I know, this is going to trigger the usual chicken-and-egg arguments.
> "It's only been
> used once so we shouldn't use it" and "It's only been used once so we
> shouldn't
> document it until it becomes popular" to which I'll counter "If we don't
> document
> it then people will invent their own ways of tagging these things and
> we'll end up
> with the usual mess which we can't change because all the different ways of
> mapping it are too widely used"  and "it's not a key, it's just a value."
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Christoph Hormann



> Paul Allen  hat am 20. Juni 2020 um 15:46 geschrieben:
> Erm, nope, I didn't say that.  I said that if British English has a name
> for something
> then we should use it.  I didn't say that we should force square pegs into
> round holes.  To me it isn't whether it's called a qanat or an
> Undergroundwatertransfersystemfedfromawellandwithverticalmaintenanceshafts
> (as it might be named in some languages) but what it actually is.

Then we are in agreement i think.

-- 
Christoph Hormann 
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

G.  The keyboard on this laptop is annoying.  To finish an unfinished
message...

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 14:40, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 14:31, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
>> > loan words.  Qanat IS a word that appears in English dictionaries and
>> it IS
>> > the British English name for such structures.
>>
>> That might be the case here - but only because English speakers have
>> started communicating about this kind of thing using that term quite a long
>> time ago.  This is not the case for elements of the geography outside of
>> English speaking countries that English speakers have no broad awareness of
>> (of which there are plenty).
>>
>
> Yeah, but Britain imposed its imperial colonialism upon much of the world,
> so
> we've been using local words for a lot of geographical features for a long
> time.
>
> As for terms we don't already know, the tendency in English would be to
> adopt
> the local word if we found a need to refer to it.
>
> A bigger problem, I think, is a tendency
>

... for us to force round pegs into square holes.  It's not just that the
locals
give it a different name, it is actually different.  Like insisting that a
qanat is
just an underground canal.

> We should definitely map things that do not physically occur in
>> > English-speaking parts of the world.  But we should use the British
>> English
>> > name (which may or may not have been derived from the local name) to tag
>> > them.
>>
>> That would mean giving up on the goal of creating the best map of the
>> world through collection of local knowledge of the geography and replacing
>> it with the goal of creating a map of the world as it is perceived my
>> English speakers.
>>
>
Erm, nope, I didn't say that.  I said that if British English has a name
for something
then we should use it.  I didn't say that we should force square pegs into
round holes.  To me it isn't whether it's called a qanat or an
Undergroundwatertransfersystemfedfromawellandwithverticalmaintenanceshafts
(as it might be named in some languages) but what it actually is.  A qanat
is
more than just an underground canal whatever we call it, and deserves to be
tagged differently.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Niels Elgaard Larsen

Paul Allen:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 13:17, Christoph Hormann  > 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.
> 
> 
> I agree with you there.  Sort of.  English has no equivalent term because
> the UK has no equivalent structure.  But English has done what it always
> does with such things when it needs to refer to such things - it made them
> loan words. 


And we already have plenty of those:

Piste
Gabion
Kindergarten
chicane
kneipp_water_cure
bureau_de_change
aikido
krachtbal
boules
futsal
adit
gasometer

> Qanat IS a word that appears in English dictionaries and it IS
> the British English name for such structures.  Some languages prefer
> to come up with new words of their own rather than borrow words from
> another language; English, being a mongrel tongue, has no such qualms.
>  
> 
>   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.
> 
> 
> We should definitely map things that do not physically occur in
> English-speaking parts of the world.  But we should use the British English
> name (which may or may not have been derived from the local name) to tag
> them.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 


-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 14:31, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> > loan words.  Qanat IS a word that appears in English dictionaries and it
> IS
> > the British English name for such structures.
>
> That might be the case here - but only because English speakers have
> started communicating about this kind of thing using that term quite a long
> time ago.  This is not the case for elements of the geography outside of
> English speaking countries that English speakers have no broad awareness of
> (of which there are plenty).
>

Yeah, but Britain imposed its imperial colonialism upon much of the world,
so
we've been using local words for a lot of geographical features for a long
time.

As for terms we don't already know, the tendency in English would be to
adopt
the local word if we found a need to refer to it.

A bigger problem, I think, is a tendency

>
> > We should definitely map things that do not physically occur in
> > English-speaking parts of the world.  But we should use the British
> English
> > name (which may or may not have been derived from the local name) to tag
> > them.
>
> That would mean giving up on the goal of creating the best map of the
> world through collection of local knowledge of the geography and replacing
> it with the goal of creating a map of the world as it is perceived my
> English speakers.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> Imagico.de Geovisualisierungen
> http://services.imagico.de
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Christoph Hormann

> loan words.  Qanat IS a word that appears in English dictionaries and it IS
> the British English name for such structures.

That might be the case here - but only because English speakers have started 
communicating about this kind of thing using that term quite a long time ago.  
This is not the case for elements of the geography outside of English speaking 
countries that English speakers have no broad awareness of (of which there are 
plenty).

> We should definitely map things that do not physically occur in
> English-speaking parts of the world.  But we should use the British English
> name (which may or may not have been derived from the local name) to tag
> them.

That would mean giving up on the goal of creating the best map of the world 
through collection of local knowledge of the geography and replacing it with 
the goal of creating a map of the world as it is perceived my English speakers.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
Imagico.de Geovisualisierungen
http://services.imagico.de

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 13:17, Christoph Hormann  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.

I agree with you there.  Sort of.  English has no equivalent term because
the UK has no equivalent structure.  But English has done what it always
does with such things when it needs to refer to such things - it made them
loan words.  Qanat IS a word that appears in English dictionaries and it IS
the British English name for such structures.  Some languages prefer
to come up with new words of their own rather than borrow words from
another language; English, being a mongrel tongue, has no such qualms.

>   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.
>

We should definitely map things that do not physically occur in
English-speaking parts of the world.  But we should use the British English
name (which may or may not have been derived from the local name) to tag
them.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

Recently I was digging for some details of a farm I was mapping and came
across a map
of the locations of milk churn stands in the county of Ceredigion. It
struck me that we
should have a way of tagging mllk churn stands.

They are platforms, usually constructed from bricks or concrete,
occasionally large
chunks of stone, sometimes made of wood, that are usually located near the
entrances to farms. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_churn_stand
and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Milk_churn_stands

I consider them to be mappable because they can aid navigation and can be
used by
walkers as improvised tables/seats. Probably not worth rendering on the
standard
map but could be rendered by walking maps.

They came into use in the 19th century and fell into disuse in the UK in
1979
when milk collection was entirely by tanker. Although the Wikipedia article
mentions only the UK, they were in use in other parts of the world such as
Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Estonia. They may still be used in
2nd or 3rd world countries. The purpose was for the farmer to place large
containers of milk on the stand to make it easier for them to be
transferred to a
cart (later lorry). Although no longer used in the countries already
mentioned, they
are unlikely to be removed because that would take time and money and
(usually)
nothing would be gained.

My instinct would be to use man_made=milk_churn_stand. Checking with
taginfo shows this has already been used once. Overpass-turbo shows it
was used in Germany. I'm not entirely happy with "milk churn stand" even
though in British English the milk containers were known as "milk churns"
despite not being used to churn milk, but I can't think of anything better.
Etymology of the misleading name is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_churn

The existing instance I found also included historic=yes. I don't consider
that should be used with most milk churn stands as it is not a synonym
for old or disused but means it is of historical significance (most of these
are not). They should probably have disused=yes or a disused lifecycle
prefix (cue endless arguments about which) except in parts of the world
where they actually are still in use (if they are).

Here's the map I found. It deals only with the county of Ceredigion and the
person responsible has only dealt with about half of that county so far.
Until
and unless I can get a response from him I don't entirely trust the accuracy
of his locations and wouldn't use them anyway because of copyright (unless
he gave permission and assurances of accuracy). But his map gives some idea
of the ubiquity of these things.
https://www.lookingformaps.com/mapa.php?mapa=Stondinau-Llaeth-Ceredigion-Milk-Stands-Dr-Roger-Owen-Prifysgol-Aberystwyth-Uni
Be patient, it takes a while for the map to load.

Why do I bring all this up here? Because I'd like to document what tag(s)
to
use for milk churn stands. The person who mapped the German one as
man_made=milk_churn_stand says he mapped another one as
historic=milk_churn_stand because he wasn't sure of the best way to map
them.

I know, this is going to trigger the usual chicken-and-egg arguments.
"It's only been
used once so we shouldn't use it" and "It's only been used once so we
shouldn't
document it until it becomes popular" to which I'll counter "If we don't
document
it then people will invent their own ways of tagging these things and we'll
end up
with the usual mess which we can't change because all the different ways of
mapping it are too widely used" and "it's not a key, it's just a value."

--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Christoph Hormann


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@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Warin


On 20/6/20 9:35 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 
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 would be great to be able to formally deprecate man_made=qanat 
before it becomes de facto.


Hopefully we can get enough interest in this issue for the vote to be 
convincing.



The issue with waterway=qanat could be that it is only applicable to 
those structures that still carry water, while many of them will not 
be in a working state, or maybe I’m misguided?


I could imagine using historic=aqueduct with a subtag aqueduct=qanat 
for all of them, and add the waterway tag to distinguish working from 
nonworking?



The use of the lifecycle prefixes should be used.

disused:*=* for things that can easily be put back into use.

abandoned:*=* for things that require a lot of work and $ to be put back 
into use


and so on.


disused:waterway=canal+canal=qanat ???

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Joseph Guillaume

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 historic and/or active.

Cheers,

Joseph
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

sent from a phone

> On 20. Jun 2020, at 02:10, Joseph Guillaume  wrote:
> 
> somebody else needs to map whether it is historical or active.

for me „historic“ does not necessarily imply it is not active. Have a look at 
the historic key, most things are „active“: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route