[Tagging] historic memorial (was Re: "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat")

2020-06-21 Thread Marc Gemis
What about a plate that remembers a police officer that was killed in 2002?

regards

m.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 3:28 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 08:11, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> you are raising the bar higher than it is. Every memorial is tagged as 
>> historic for example.
>
>
> That is not a good argument.  It is not (usually) the memorial itself which 
> is of
> historic interest but the event or person it commemorates.
>
> For example, this plaque was unveiled in 1993:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cardigan_Eisteddfod_Plaque.jpg
> The event it commemorates took place in 1176 and is considered to be
> of great cultural and historical significance:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1176_Cardigan_eisteddfod
>
> That plaque could be destroyed by a car driving into it and be replaced by
> a new plaque.  That new plaque would still qualify as historic=memorial
> the moment it was installed, because the historical interest is in the event
> it commemorates.
>
> --
> 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"

2020-06-21 Thread Tod Fitch
A few questions:

1. What is the “elevation” tag supposed to mean? It is not in the wiki and the 
use count is pretty small [1].

2. Why level=-3? I seems like that would be dependent on what other underground 
features were being mapped.

3. Why status=abandoned | active? Wouldn’t the lifecycle prefix be a better fit?

—Tod

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/elevation#values


> On Jun 21, 2020, at 3:05 PM, Joseph Guillaume  
> wrote:
> 
> 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 active
> tunnel=flooded
> waterway=canal
> 
> I'm not sure how to check how many other people have been mapping 
> man_made=qanat, but as someone who's mapped a lot of canal=qanat, I'm happy 
> to proceed with that as a new de facto.
> 
> I'm happy to still go to a vote if Jeisenbe would like, but I don't 
> personally feel comfortable mapping either man_made=qanat (too generic, 
> doesn't fit with waterways) or historic=aqueduct+aqueduct=qanat (visions of 
> Roman aqueducts don't sit well with me in this case - only some qanats are of 
> historic value).
> 
> Thanks for the interesting discussion,
> 
> JoeG
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun., 21 Jun. 2020, 4:44 am Joseph Eisenberg,  > wrote:
> > 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 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-06-21 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Thank you, I had intended to try to find out who was using that tag,
myself, so it was very helpful to contact them.

Glad to hear that the mappers using man_made=qanat are happy to change to
this tag.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 3:07 PM Joseph Guillaume 
wrote:
>
> 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 active
> tunnel=flooded
> waterway=canal
>
> I'm not sure how to check how many other people have been mapping
man_made=qanat, but as someone who's mapped a lot of canal=qanat, I'm happy
to proceed with that as a new de facto.
>
> I'm happy to still go to a vote if Jeisenbe would like, but I don't
personally feel comfortable mapping either man_made=qanat (too generic,
doesn't fit with waterways) or historic=aqueduct+aqueduct=qanat (visions of
Roman aqueducts don't sit well with me in this case - only some qanats are
of historic value).
>
> Thanks for the interesting discussion,
>
> JoeG
>
>
>
> On Sun., 21 Jun. 2020, 4:44 am Joseph Eisenberg, <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>
> ___
> 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"

2020-06-21 Thread Alan Mackie
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 15:00, ael  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 01:41:53PM +0100, Steve Doerr wrote:
> > For what it's worth, two points:
> >
> > 1. The Oxford English Dictionary spells this word as kanat.
> >
> > 2. It doesn't sound like anything we would refer to as a canal in
> English:
> > canals are for transportation (goods or humans) and are designed to
> > accommodate boats (even if no longer used in that way).
> >
> +1.  I have noticed this misuse of "canal" before.
>
> I would tend to agree with this but Lexico (by Oxford) also mentions
"convey water for irrigation", so it's probably not entirely fair to say
they are (or were) meant to be navigable.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/canal

Maybe it is a mistake to limit aqueduct entirely to historic objects. Could
we tag them as waterway=aqueduct and aqueduct=qanat ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-06-21 Thread Joseph Guillaume
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 active
tunnel=flooded
waterway=canal

I'm not sure how to check how many other people have been mapping
man_made=qanat, but as someone who's mapped a lot of canal=qanat, I'm happy
to proceed with that as a new de facto.

I'm happy to still go to a vote if Jeisenbe would like, but I don't
personally feel comfortable mapping either man_made=qanat (too generic,
doesn't fit with waterways) or historic=aqueduct+aqueduct=qanat (visions of
Roman aqueducts don't sit well with me in this case - only some qanats are
of historic value).

Thanks for the interesting discussion,

JoeG



On Sun., 21 Jun. 2020, 4:44 am Joseph Eisenberg, 
wrote:

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


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

2020-06-21 Thread Joseph Guillaume
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 de facto accepted that the tag is used with a broader meaning, which
qanats adhere to.

Cheers,

JoeG


On Mon., 22 Jun. 2020, 12:00 am ael,  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 01:41:53PM +0100, Steve Doerr wrote:
> > For what it's worth, two points:
> >
> > 1. The Oxford English Dictionary spells this word as kanat.
> >
> > 2. It doesn't sound like anything we would refer to as a canal in
> English:
> > canals are for transportation (goods or humans) and are designed to
> > accommodate boats (even if no longer used in that way).
> >
> +1.  I have noticed this misuse of "canal" before.
>
> ael
>
>
> ___
> 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

2020-06-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
In addition I think there are (wooden) platforms for churns in the same
area. At least I think so, but until I find one, I cannot say for sure
whether they still exist or not.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, 15:37 Paul Allen,  wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 14:22, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> My point was only that we should be carefully looking for variants of the
>> concept, and try to make it mappable, avoiding too specialized tags.
>> Something like "milk collection point" would comprise both if we were to
>> distinguish active from historic ones.
>>
>
> It depends if we're tagging function or form or trying to handle both.  I
> have no
> objection to a milk_collection_point tag (or collection_point=milk) or
> whatever, as
> additional information but I'd like to have a tag for the physical form of
> these
> stands.
>
> In the UK, these are no longer used, or no longer used for their original
> purpose.  So man_made=milk_churn_stand + disused=yes is a better fit than
> just amenity = milk_collection_point + disused=yes because the latter on
> its
> own is just mapping history.
>
> --
> 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"

2020-06-21 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 15:00, ael  wrote:

>
> +1.  I have noticed this misuse of "canal" before.
>

It's almost as if some people confuse the English "canal" with the Italian
"canale."  There is historical precedent for that, although it applied to
a different planet.

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


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

2020-06-21 Thread ael
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 01:41:53PM +0100, Steve Doerr wrote:
> For what it's worth, two points:
> 
> 1. The Oxford English Dictionary spells this word as kanat.
> 
> 2. It doesn't sound like anything we would refer to as a canal in English:
> canals are for transportation (goods or humans) and are designed to
> accommodate boats (even if no longer used in that way).
> 
+1.  I have noticed this misuse of "canal" before.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 14:22, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> My point was only that we should be carefully looking for variants of the
> concept, and try to make it mappable, avoiding too specialized tags.
> Something like "milk collection point" would comprise both if we were to
> distinguish active from historic ones.
>

It depends if we're tagging function or form or trying to handle both.  I
have no
objection to a milk_collection_point tag (or collection_point=milk) or
whatever, as
additional information but I'd like to have a tag for the physical form of
these
stands.

In the UK, these are no longer used, or no longer used for their original
purpose.  So man_made=milk_churn_stand + disused=yes is a better fit than
just amenity = milk_collection_point + disused=yes because the latter on its
own is just mapping history.

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


Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 21. Jun 2020, at 15:22, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> My point was only that we should be carefully looking for variants of the 
> concept, and try to make it mappable, avoiding too specialized tags.
> Something like "milk collection point" would comprise both if we were to 
> distinguish active from historic ones.


IMHO you are talking about different things: one is about remnants in the 
landscape, useful for orientation and interesting for some as testimonies of 
history, the other is about a function which is exercised at certain times and 
otherwise not observable, hence pretty useless to know about unless you have 
very particular interests (because the farmers will likely not need 
OpenStreetMap to know where to bring their milk).
I find the inactive milk churning stands more important to map than the active 
collection points, and I don’t see a need or even good argument to use the same 
tag on both. Man made seems suitable for the former, amenity and 
disused:amenity would be fine for the function (but as explained above, 
function is less important in this case, subjectively)


Cheers Martin 



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


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

2020-06-21 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 08:11, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> you are raising the bar higher than it is. Every memorial is tagged as
> historic for example.
>

That is not a good argument.  It is not (usually) the memorial itself which
is of
historic interest but the event or person it commemorates.

For example, this plaque was unveiled in 1993:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cardigan_Eisteddfod_Plaque.jpg
The event it commemorates took place in 1176 and is considered to be
of great cultural and historical significance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1176_Cardigan_eisteddfod

That plaque could be destroyed by a car driving into it and be replaced by
a new plaque.  That new plaque would still qualify as historic=memorial
the moment it was installed, because the historical interest is in the event
it commemorates.

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


Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
My point was only that we should be carefully looking for variants of the
concept, and try to make it mappable, avoiding too specialized tags.
Something like "milk collection point" would comprise both if we were to
distinguish active from historic ones.


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 15:09, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 13:13, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>>
>> I looked around a bit (I am a city dweller, apologies, if this is new to
>> me)
>> In South Tyrol (Italy) they have an interesting variant of this concept.
>> The dairy uses refrigerated containers which are parked in designated spots
>> at scheduled times. The nearby farmers bring their milk to the container
>> and fill it up. The full containers are collected and carried to the dairy.
>> I found this photograph  of
>> such a container on Instagram.
>> I suppose this is not a mappable feature.
>>
>
> It's not a milk churn stand because there is no platform.  If you find one
> of
> these with a platform then that would be a milk churn stand.
>
> It ought to be mappable, even so.  There is an area of paved surface
> adjoining
> the road.  It might be a small car park (mappable) or a lay-by (mappable)
> or
> a passing place (mappable).  So such areas are mappable, we just don't have
> tags for such areas with this particular function.  I see no reason why
> there
> could not be, especially if there is signage telling people not to park
> there
> because it is a collection point.  You could propose suitable tagging.
>
> Or, you could bodge it. :)  You could make the area where the containers
> are placed highway=service + area=yes.  You could ask the locals what its
> name is and they'll probably respond with the local language equivalent of
> "Milk Collection Point" or "Milk Collection Point 46" or some such which
> (in common with many things in rural areas) is a name that looks
> suspiciously
> like a functional description, so you can name it.  OSM purists will now be
> clutching their pearls, so add a fixme saying it should be retagged when
> suitable tagging becomes available.
>
> More seriously, we probably should find a way to map collection points
> because, on the ground, a tourist may think they're just parking spots and
> park there.  highway=collection_point + area=yes + collection_point=milk,
> maybe.  Some would argue it's not a highway, so maybe
> amenity=collectoin_point + access=private + collection_point=milk.
> I've purposely added a collection_point subtag rather than make it
> *=milk_collection_point so we can handle other things without
> over-burdening a top-level tag with more values.
>
> Of course, that would then have overlap for those milk churn stands
> that are still functional, and that complicates things.  So maybe we should
> forget those milk collection points exist. :)
>
> --
> 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] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 13:13, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
> I looked around a bit (I am a city dweller, apologies, if this is new to
> me)
> In South Tyrol (Italy) they have an interesting variant of this concept.
> The dairy uses refrigerated containers which are parked in designated spots
> at scheduled times. The nearby farmers bring their milk to the container
> and fill it up. The full containers are collected and carried to the dairy.
> I found this photograph  of
> such a container on Instagram.
> I suppose this is not a mappable feature.
>

It's not a milk churn stand because there is no platform.  If you find one
of
these with a platform then that would be a milk churn stand.

It ought to be mappable, even so.  There is an area of paved surface
adjoining
the road.  It might be a small car park (mappable) or a lay-by (mappable) or
a passing place (mappable).  So such areas are mappable, we just don't have
tags for such areas with this particular function.  I see no reason why
there
could not be, especially if there is signage telling people not to park
there
because it is a collection point.  You could propose suitable tagging.

Or, you could bodge it. :)  You could make the area where the containers
are placed highway=service + area=yes.  You could ask the locals what its
name is and they'll probably respond with the local language equivalent of
"Milk Collection Point" or "Milk Collection Point 46" or some such which
(in common with many things in rural areas) is a name that looks
suspiciously
like a functional description, so you can name it.  OSM purists will now be
clutching their pearls, so add a fixme saying it should be retagged when
suitable tagging becomes available.

More seriously, we probably should find a way to map collection points
because, on the ground, a tourist may think they're just parking spots and
park there.  highway=collection_point + area=yes + collection_point=milk,
maybe.  Some would argue it's not a highway, so maybe
amenity=collectoin_point + access=private + collection_point=milk.
I've purposely added a collection_point subtag rather than make it
*=milk_collection_point so we can handle other things without
over-burdening a top-level tag with more values.

Of course, that would then have overlap for those milk churn stands
that are still functional, and that complicates things.  So maybe we should
forget those milk collection points exist. :)

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


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

2020-06-21 Thread Steve Doerr

On 21/06/2020 13:41, Steve Doerr wrote:

The Oxford English Dictionary spells this word as kanat.


Actually, more recent (smaller) dictionaries from the Oxford family have 
adopted the spelling qanat, so I withdraw that point.


--
Steve

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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


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

2020-06-21 Thread Steve Doerr

For what it's worth, two points:

1. The Oxford English Dictionary spells this word as kanat.

2. It doesn't sound like anything we would refer to as a canal in 
English: canals are for transportation (goods or humans) and are 
designed to accommodate boats (even if no longer used in that way).


--

Steve


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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


Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 21. Jun 2020, at 14:13, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> The nearby farmers bring their milk to the container and fill it up. The full 
> containers are collected and carried to the dairy.
> I found this photograph of such a container on Instagram.
> I suppose this is not a mappable feature.


The caption says “collection point”, which indicates that it happens at the 
same spots, so in theory it could be mapped I would think (it is verifiable, go 
to the spot at the collection time and you can see it). 

Different kind of thing as the OP’s feature, the latter is about a physical 
remnant of a former function, the thing you posted is about only a function at 
a given place but no physical manifestation.

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


Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
Update.
I looked around a bit (I am a city dweller, apologies, if this is new to me)
In South Tyrol (Italy) they have an interesting variant of this concept.
The dairy uses refrigerated containers which are parked in designated spots
at scheduled times. The nearby farmers bring their milk to the container
and fill it up. The full containers are collected and carried to the dairy.
I found this photograph  of such
a container on Instagram.
I suppose this is not a mappable feature.



Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 11:28, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 19:25 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> I can remember milk churns on these stands waiting for collection being a
> common sight when I was growing up.
>
> These days milk churns are a common period prop on preserved railway
> stations.
> For example here at Arley 
> https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4458834
>
> When children see these and ask what they are they will be told that they
> are milk churns rather milk cans.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 19:25 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> 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.
> 
I can remember milk churns on these stands waiting for collection being
a common sight when I was growing up.
These days milk churns are a common period prop on preserved railway
stations.For example here at Arley 
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4458834
When children see these and ask what they are they will be told that
they are milk churns rather milk cans.
Phil (trigpoint)




> -- 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> ___Tagging mailing 
> listtagg...@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"

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 21. Jun 2020, at 10:33, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> this makes a lot of sense, the sentence “the immediate water source is an 
> aquifer OR a well” doesn’t. 


ok, maybe it does ;-)
Can a well have a higher water level than the aquifer it is boring into? Maybe 
it can, although it seems less likely when you continuously extract water from 
it.

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


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

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 21. Jun 2020, at 10:05, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> "the origin of the qanat was a well that was turned into an artificial spring"



this makes a lot of sense, the sentence “the immediate water source is an 
aquifer OR a well” doesn’t. 


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


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

2020-06-21 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 21, 2020, 09:05 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 21. Jun 2020, at 03:02, Joseph Guillaume  
>> wrote:
>>
>> It would be like mapping every fountain as historic.
>>
>> They're often not considered of historic interest locally, let alone 
>> nationally or internationally.
>>
>> Hope this clarifies my thinking...
>>
>
>
> you are raising the bar higher than it is. Every memorial is tagged as 
> historic for example. Historic is a key like any other. Maybe historic=yes 
> has a requirement for some significance (eg amenity=fountain historic =yes), 
> but there isn’t for historic=x, eg there aren’t memorials that don’t 
> “deserve” historic=memorial
>
It may be desirable to avoid repeat of historic=wayside_shrine failure where 
due to lack of alternative
it is widely used to tag modern shrines and ones that are not beside a road

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


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

2020-06-21 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 21, 2020, 09:50 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 21. Jun 2020, at 02:26, Joseph Eisenberg  
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>
>
>
> right, then where is the well? Isn’t this always about getting the water from 
> the aquifer? And if it is a well as stated as a possibility in the wiki, how 
> can it work with just gravity? A well means a hole dug into the ground to get 
> access to water below the point where you are, not?
>
See 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Qanat_cross_section.svg/1920px-Qanat_cross_section.svg.png
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat#Technical_features

"the origin of the qanat was a well that was turned into an artificial spring"

On the diagram it is labelled as as "mother well" on the left



>  A well means a hole dug into the ground to get access to water below the 
> point where you are, not?
>
and quanat is an underground channel starting from water level of a well, see 
linked diagram

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


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

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 21. Jun 2020, at 02:26, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> > 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.



right, then where is the well? Isn’t this always about getting the water from 
the aquifer? And if it is a well as stated as a possibility in the wiki, how 
can it work with just gravity? A well means a hole dug into the ground to get 
access to water below the point where you are, not?


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


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

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 21. Jun 2020, at 03:02, Joseph Guillaume  wrote:
> 
> It would be like mapping every fountain as historic.
> 
> They're often not considered of historic interest locally, let alone 
> nationally or internationally.
> 
> Hope this clarifies my thinking...


you are raising the bar higher than it is. Every memorial is tagged as historic 
for example. Historic is a key like any other. Maybe historic=yes has a 
requirement for some significance (eg amenity=fountain historic =yes), but 
there isn’t for historic=x, eg there aren’t memorials that don’t “deserve” 
historic=memorial

Ciao Martin 



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