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

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

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - 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)? Look at the diagram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat#/media/File:Qanat-3.svg or

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

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

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

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

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

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

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

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 >>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

"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

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

> 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 >

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

[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,

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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“:

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 01:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Normal OSM access is assumed to be access=yes, where some access is > restricted then in OSM it should be marked *=no. for roads access=yes is assumed, it is not necessarily the default for all kind of