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

2020-08-10 Thread Walker Bradley
Is there further discussion on this, or do the advocates thing it’s ready for a 
vote?

> On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:19, Walker Bradley  wrote:
> 
> 
> I fully support it as outlined by Joseph.
> 
>>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 12:59, Joseph Eisenberg  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> > Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that 
>> > qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution.  
>> > > Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, 
>> > tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead.
>> 
>> Yes, that is the plan. You can also add usage=irrigation or another 
>> appropriate value of usage=*, and width=*
>> 
>> – Joseph Eisenberg
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:12 AM Walker Bradley  
>>> wrote:
>>> I concur that historic or heritage should be secondary tags.
>>> 
>>> Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that 
>>> qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution.  
>>> Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, 
>>> tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead.  Thoughts?
>>> 
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:27, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
 
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley  
> wrote:
 
> So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate 
> sub-tags for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, 
> canal=qanat, tunnel=yes.
 
 That's how I see it.  Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong.  
 So
 if we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic
 qanats by adding historic=yes.
> 
> I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what 
> criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.
 
 See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it 
 needs
 modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for
 man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats.
 
 If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's 
 historic.
 If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic.  Which
 isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag
 shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat)
 over historic=qanat).
 
 -- 
 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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-06-26 Thread Walker Bradley
I fully support it as outlined by Joseph.

> On Jun 26, 2020, at 12:59, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that 
> > qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution.  
> > > Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, 
> > tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead.
> 
> Yes, that is the plan. You can also add usage=irrigation or another 
> appropriate value of usage=*, and width=*
> 
> – Joseph Eisenberg
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:12 AM Walker Bradley  
>> wrote:
>> I concur that historic or heritage should be secondary tags.
>> 
>> Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that 
>> qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution.  
>> Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, 
>> tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead.  Thoughts?
>> 
 On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:27, Paul Allen  wrote:
 
>>> 
 On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley  
 wrote:
>>> 
 So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate 
 sub-tags for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat, 
 tunnel=yes.
>>> 
>>> That's how I see it.  Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong.  
>>> So
>>> if we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic
>>> qanats by adding historic=yes.
 
 I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what 
 criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.
>>> 
>>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it 
>>> needs
>>> modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for
>>> man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats.
>>> 
>>> If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's 
>>> historic.
>>> If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic.  Which
>>> isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag
>>> shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat)
>>> over historic=qanat).
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-06-26 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out
that qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and
distribution.  > Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal,
canal=qanat, tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead.

Yes, that is the plan. You can also add usage=irrigation or another
appropriate value of usage=*, and width=*

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:12 AM Walker Bradley 
wrote:

> I concur that historic or heritage should be secondary tags.
>
> Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that
> qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution.
> Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat,
> tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead.  Thoughts?
>
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:27, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> 
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley 
> wrote:
>
>> So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate
>> sub-tags for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat,
>> tunnel=yes.
>>
>
> That's how I see it.  Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong.
> So
> if we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic
> qanats by adding historic=yes.
>
>>
>> I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what
>> criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.
>>
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it
> needs
> modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for
> man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats.
>
> If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's
> historic.
> If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic.  Which
> isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag
> shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat)
> over historic=qanat).
>
> --
> 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] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-26 Thread Walker Bradley
I concur that historic or heritage should be secondary tags.

Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that 
qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution.  
Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, tunnel=yes 
to waterway=canal instead.  Thoughts?

>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:27, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley  
>> wrote:
> 
>> So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate sub-tags 
>> for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat, tunnel=yes.
> 
> That's how I see it.  Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong.  So
> if we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic
> qanats by adding historic=yes.
>> 
>> I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what 
>> criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.
> 
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it needs
> modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for
> man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats.
> 
> If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's historic.
> If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic.  Which
> isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag
> shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat)
> over historic=qanat).
> 
> -- 
> 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"

2020-06-26 Thread Paul Allen
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley 
wrote:

> So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate
> sub-tags for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat,
> tunnel=yes.
>

That's how I see it.  Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong.
So
if we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic
qanats by adding historic=yes.

>
> I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what
> criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.
>

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it
needs
modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for
man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats.

If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's
historic.
If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic.  Which
isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag
shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat)
over historic=qanat).

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


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

2020-06-26 Thread Walker Bradley
So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate sub-tags 
for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat, tunnel=yes.

I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what 
criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.

> On Jun 26, 2020, at 10:42, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 14:47, Walker Bradley  
>> wrote:
> 
>> Some Qanats are over three thousand years old, and are certainly listed in 
>> guidebooks.
> 
> Those may merit a historic=yes.  Depends on the guidebook, to some extent.
> 
>>  There is a Qanat system in Persia that is UNESCO listed 
>> (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1506/)
> 
> That certainly merits heritage tagging because it is listed by a heritage 
> organization. 
>> 
>> “Modern” Qanats/Karez are still often hand dug, not with modern tunneling 
>> equipment. The World Bank funded the refurbishment of many in Afghanistan, 
>> usually these were done with traditional methods, and they are the main 
>> source of water in many areas.
> 
> Modern ones are definitely not historic=yes.  Not all of the old ones are
> historic=yes but are just everyday water supply of no special interest
> except to the thirsty.
> 
> -- 
> 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"

2020-06-26 Thread Paul Allen
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 14:47, Walker Bradley 
wrote:

> Some Qanats are over three thousand years old, and are certainly listed in
> guidebooks.
>

Those may merit a historic=yes.  Depends on the guidebook, to some extent.

 There is a Qanat system in Persia that is UNESCO listed (
> https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1506/)
>

That certainly merits heritage tagging because it is listed by a heritage
organization.

>
> “Modern” Qanats/Karez are still often hand dug, not with modern tunneling
> equipment. The World Bank funded the refurbishment of many in Afghanistan,
> usually these were done with traditional methods, and they are the main
> source of water in many areas.
>

Modern ones are definitely not historic=yes.  Not all of the old ones are
historic=yes but are just everyday water supply of no special interest
except to the thirsty.

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


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

2020-06-26 Thread Paul Allen
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 14:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> On 26. Jun 2020, at 12:52, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> A lot of the UK's sewer network is old.  Like a qanat, it channels water
> and
> has vertical shafts.  Little of that network, except some of the very first
> sewers in the UK, is of historical significance.
>
>
> according to WP the London sewer system was developed from the late 19th
> century on. This is not “old” in a historic sense, looking at a city that
> has thousands of years of history. I don’t know about the rest of the
> country but I would suspect that it wasn’t ahead of London.
>

AFAIK, London's sewerage system was the first such public system in the UK
that wasn't simply dumping the stuff in the nearest river.  As such, the
first
elements of that system are of historical interest not because of their age
but because they were the first.


> Historic is of course relative, as is old.
>

Erm, no.  Due to recent events, civil rights and equality in the US are
very likely to change drastically (hopefully for the better but there is a
small chance of things changing for the worse).  If the right side wins,
I foresee a memorial of some sort being erected to George Floyd.
What distinguishes that particular bit of street from any other bit of the
same street is not the age (both bits were constructed at the same time)
or the age of the street relative to the rest of the city, but that an event
of historical interest took place there.

Historic is not a synonym for old or for relatively old.

All this becomes even more relative if you look at actual usage of the
> historic key in OpenStreetMap :
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values
>

Sadly, not all mappers bother to read the wiki page and assume that historic
is a synonym for old or for disused or for repurposed.

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


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

2020-06-26 Thread Walker Bradley
Some Qanats are over three thousand years old, and are certainly listed in 
guidebooks.  There is a Qanat system in Persia that is UNESCO listed 
(https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1506/)

“Modern” Qanats/Karez are still often hand dug, not with modern tunneling 
equipment. The World Bank funded the refurbishment of many in Afghanistan, 
usually these were done with traditional methods, and they are the main source 
of water in many areas.

Walker


> On Jun 26, 2020, at 06:52, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> This would imply "historic" is for things of exceptional historical value,
> 
> That's how I read it.
>  
>> it is not how I read the tag. Almost every man made structure that is "old", 
>> has endured the times and is still here, does have some importance as 
>> testimony of former times.
> 
> Now define "old."  The past began 1E-43 seconds ago.  How far back into
> the past qualifies as "old" to you?  A year?  Ten years?  A hundred years?
> A thousand years?  Or just a few seconds?
>  
>> Any archaeological site is "historic"
> 
> Most archaeological sites in the UK, of any significance, are 
> scheduled monuments giving them legal protection against modification.
> They qualify for heritage=* by virtue of their protected status.
> 
> Other things are historic.  Not just old, but of cultural significance.  Not
> necessarily tourism=attraction but things that are of interest to some
> tourists by virtue of their history.
> 
> Most things are just old.  Even for very large values of "old."
> 
> A lot of the UK's sewer network is old.  Like a qanat, it channels water and
> has vertical shafts.  Little of that network, except some of the very first
> sewers in the UK, is of historical significance.
> 
> Historic is not a synonym for old.  Historic means noteworthy.  Worthy of
> being part of recorded history.  Or, in the case of memorials, a record
> of history.  The sort of thing you find mentioned in a guidebook because
> it is associated with some significant event or personage.  The sort of
> thing that gets an article by the local historical society because it is
> more than just old.
> 
> -- 
> 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"

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 26. Jun 2020, at 12:52, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> A lot of the UK's sewer network is old.  Like a qanat, it channels water and
> has vertical shafts.  Little of that network, except some of the very first
> sewers in the UK, is of historical significance.


according to WP the London sewer system was developed from the late 19th 
century on. This is not “old” in a historic sense, looking at a city that has 
thousands of years of history. I don’t know about the rest of the country but I 
would suspect that it wasn’t ahead of London. Historic is of course relative, 
as is old. A 2 years old car is still quite new, 3 months old milk is quite old 
;-)
A car from the 1920ies could likely be considered historic in any state, even 
as a wrack. Any water supplying infrastructure that is older than 100-200 years 
is likely historic anywhere in the world. Show me some ruins that are older 
than a few hundred years and are not “historic” but “just old”. It depends on 
the thing.

All this becomes even more relative if you look at actual usage of the historic 
key in OpenStreetMap :
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values

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


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

2020-06-26 Thread Paul Allen
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

This would imply "historic" is for things of exceptional historical value,
>

That's how I read it.


> it is not how I read the tag. Almost every man made structure that is
> "old", has endured the times and is still here, does have some importance
> as testimony of former times.
>

Now define "old."  The past began 1E-43 seconds ago.  How far back into
the past qualifies as "old" to you?  A year?  Ten years?  A hundred years?
A thousand years?  Or just a few seconds?


> Any archaeological site is "historic"
>

Most archaeological sites in the UK, of any significance, are
scheduled monuments giving them legal protection against modification.
They qualify for heritage=* by virtue of their protected status.

Other things are historic.  Not just old, but of cultural significance.  Not
necessarily tourism=attraction but things that are of interest to some
tourists by virtue of their history.

Most things are just old.  Even for very large values of "old."

A lot of the UK's sewer network is old.  Like a qanat, it channels water and
has vertical shafts.  Little of that network, except some of the very first
sewers in the UK, is of historical significance.

Historic is not a synonym for old.  Historic means noteworthy.  Worthy of
being part of recorded history.  Or, in the case of memorials, a record
of history.  The sort of thing you find mentioned in a guidebook because
it is associated with some significant event or personage.  The sort of
thing that gets an article by the local historical society because it is
more than just old.

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


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

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 22. Juni 2020 um 09:32 Uhr schrieb Joseph Guillaume <
josephguilla...@gmail.com>:

> I suppose the reason I haven't provided an example is that historically
> significant qanats are the exception in my opinion - in most cases I can't
> think of a reason why it should be listed as historic other than being old.
> So here's a random one:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id=554179257#map=17/33.44256/50.80580
>
>


This would imply "historic" is for things of exceptional historical value,
it is not how I read the tag. Almost every man made structure that is
"old", has endured the times and is still here, does have some importance
as testimony of former times. Any archaeological site is "historic" (any
"old" wall from hundreds of years ago). Imagine how much dedication and
effort is needed to only manually dig underground channels (even with
mechanized tools it is a great effort) even leaving aside the work to
secure them in order to prevent them from collapsing. E.g. any roman road
that is still perceivable is of historical value, but of course someone
could also dismiss it as just a bunch of stones someone amassed a few
thousand years ago ;-) Things do not have to be the pyramids of Gizeh or
the colossus of Rhodes or the hanging gardens of Babylon in order to
"merit" the "historic" tag, IMHO.

On the other hand, if there are also recent kanats that are built in a
different way (e.g. from the 60ies, built with modern tunnel driving and
constructed in reinforced concrete), I agree that "historic" would seem a
less intuitive tag for them. I do not insist in using historic=aqueduct
plus subtag for kanat, it just seems suitable from what is already
established.

Cheers
Martin

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


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

2020-06-22 Thread Joseph Guillaume
I suppose the reason I haven't provided an example is that historically
significant qanats are the exception in my opinion - in most cases I can't
think of a reason why it should be listed as historic other than being old.
So here's a random one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id=554179257#map=17/33.44256/50.80580



On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:24 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Jun 2020, at 00:07, Joseph Guillaume 
> wrote:
> >
> > only some qanats are of historic value
>
>
> while I don’t think these must be absolutely tagged with historic=*, you
> still could show an example of a qanat that “isn’t of historic value” so
> that it becomes more convincing (or a description of one of these)
>
> Cheers Martin
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-06-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 22. Jun 2020, at 00:07, Joseph Guillaume  wrote:
> 
> only some qanats are of historic value


while I don’t think these must be absolutely tagged with historic=*, you still 
could show an example of a qanat that “isn’t of historic value” so that it 
becomes more convincing (or a description of one of these)

Cheers Martin 
___
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] "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] "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] "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] "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


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

2020-06-20 Thread Joseph Guillaume
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 considered of historic interest locally, let alone
nationally or internationally.

Hope this clarifies my thinking...

Cheers,

JoeG


On Sun., 21 Jun. 2020, 10:17 am Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

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


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

2020-06-20 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> 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"

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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"

2020-06-20 Thread Paul Allen
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"

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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"

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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] "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] "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] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> 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"

2020-06-20 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
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"

2020-06-20 Thread Paul Allen
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] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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] "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"

2020-06-20 Thread Paul Allen
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"

2020-06-20 Thread Paul Allen
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"

2020-06-20 Thread 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.  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


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"

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-19 Thread Joseph Guillaume
Hi Martin,

Thanks for engaging!

I don't think it's appropriate to tag them all as historic=aqueduct. That
would be like tagging canals in Europe as historic just because they were
built a long time ago. There are active efforts to maintain and restore
qanats/kariz in Afghanistan that have been destroyed or neglected due to
fighting, and there's increased attention to the fact that pumping as an
alternative lends itself to overextraction of groundwater and high energy
use.

It's also very difficult to tell whether a qanat is operational or not from
aerial imagery, so in most cases without local knowledge it's safest to map
it based on its physical features, i.e. it is a qanat, and somebody else
needs to map whether it is historical or active.
If you consider that waterway=canal should only be used for active canals,
that would be a vote in favour of the more generic man_made=qanat, but
historic=aqueduct is not appropriate.

Cheers,

Joseph





On Sat., 20 Jun. 2020, 9:36 am Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 20. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Joseph Guillaume 
> wrote:
>
> I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about 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?
>
> I’ve found a short article about these in Bal‘harm, a city in Sicily which
> is now better known by its current name Palermo:
> http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art154.htm
>
> There’s a map that suggests there are really a lot of these underground
> tunnels, but the article also states that most aren’t in a working
> condition:
>
> In fact, fresh water still flows through some of the channels. Several
> were still in use well into the sixteenth century, long after the Arabs had
> melded into the general Sicilian population
>
>
> 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"

2020-06-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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?

I’ve found a short article about these in Bal‘harm, a city in Sicily which is 
now better known by its current name Palermo: 
http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art154.htm

There’s a map that suggests there are really a lot of these underground 
tunnels, but the article also states that most aren’t in a working condition:

> In fact, fresh water still flows through some of the channels. Several were 
> still in use well into the sixteenth century, long after the Arabs had melded 
> into the general Sicilian population
> 

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


[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-19 Thread Joseph Guillaume
Hi all,

I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about whether to
tag qanats - it's about whether to tag them with man_made=qanat or
waterway=canal+canal=qanat.

There's already 1000 tagged, and they're very patchy geographically. It's
quite likely there's upwards of 100,000

It 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.

Thanks,

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


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

2020-06-19 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> a spring is groundwater as well.

A spring is "a place where water naturally flows out from the ground". In a
spring, the water table reaches the surface.

The source of a qanat is underground, at least several meters depth (and
often quite far underground), below the underground water table. Sometimes
a well was dug first and then a qanat was built.

Please see the illustrations and examples on the Proposal page and
wikipedia, e.g:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat#/media/File:Qanat_cross_section.svg

> if there are parts that are in pipes, will the qanat be interrupted? If
vertical shafts are not present, it is not a qanat (e.g. short enough to
not require these shafts)?

Qanats were not built from pipes. They are free-flow canals, usually cut
directly into bedrock, though that's not a requirement.

Currently, if a canal goes into a pipeline, it is standard practice to map
the pipeline as `man_made=pipeline` + `substance=water` and
perhaps `waterway=pressurised` if relevant. See for example
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/42757252/76671649-dcce3980-65da-11ea-8dfb-55f9a21c1f12.png
- at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/41.70543/9.05265

>If vertical shafts are not present, it is not a qanat (e.g. short enough
to not require these shafts)?

The vertical shafts are part of the proposed definition.

If you check out some examples, you will see that the shafts are usually
only 10 to 50m apart, so even quite short qanat usually have more than 1.
E.g.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=624008315#map=17/31.43160/-4.36968 -
several parallel qanat are visible here (though I don't know if all are
still operational) in Morocco.

Examples in Afghanistan: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Vhk

>> The short definition of the tag will be "A gently-sloping man-made
underground channel for transporting groundwater via gravity, with shafts
visible from the surface."
> my suggestion would be to add a "typically" before "with shafts visible
from the surface", because it would seem strange to need a different main
tag just because the shafts aren't visible for one reason or the other
(e.g. hidden on purpose)

Sometimes there are small walls or caps over the shafts to prevent sand or
dirt from falling in. I was considering that to be still "visible" in a
way, but sure, we could change that.

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


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

2020-06-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 19. Juni 2020 um 23:15 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> As mentioned on the proposal page, there are 4 criteria, which all qanat
> features share:
>
>
>- The immediate source of water is groundwater (aquifer or well), not
>a spring, stream or river
>
>

a spring is groundwater as well.



>
>- 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
>
>

if there are parts that are in pipes, will the qanat be interrupted? If
vertical shafts are not present, it is not a qanat (e.g. short enough to
not require these shafts)?


>
> The short definition of the tag will be "A gently-sloping man-made
> underground channel for transporting groundwater via gravity, with shafts
> visible from the surface."
>


my suggestion would be to add a "typically" before "with shafts visible
from the surface", because it would seem strange to need a different main
tag just because the shafts aren't visible for one reason or the other
(e.g. hidden on purpose)

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


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

2020-06-19 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> What about historic=aqueduct

The tag historic=aqueduct can be used, since it appears to be used for
underground aqueduct segments (as well as the more common above-ground
segments). It is briefly mentioned on the proposal page, but it is not part
of this proposal since it is an already accepted tag.

The tag will be used for currently functional canals. Generally these
features require occasional maintenance: while many were built decades ago,
the local villages maintain the knowledge and skills necessary to repair
and build these features. Brand-new qanat canals are rarely built since
powered pumps and pipelines are often cheaper to install.

> [Explain] what the criteria for the tag are (is this for all kinds of
underground aqueducts “in hot and arid” climate or are there specific
requirements for the term?)

As mentioned on the proposal page, there are 4 criteria, which all qanat
features share:


   - 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


The short definition of the tag will be "A gently-sloping man-made
underground channel for transporting groundwater via gravity, with shafts
visible from the surface."

As mentioned on Wikipedia, these kinds of aqueducts/canals are also found
around the Mediterranean, as far as Spain, and from there they were also
brought to the Americas. But they are most commonly found in North Africa,
West Asia and Central Asia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat#/media/File:Qanat_technology_diffusion.svg


– Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:42 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> What about historic=aqueduct
> should it be applied as well, in case of historic qanats?
>
>
> 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"

2020-06-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
What about historic=aqueduct
should it be applied as well, in case of historic qanats?


Cheers Martin 

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


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

2020-06-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 19. Jun 2020, at 20:32, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> A qanat is a specialized kind of underground aqueduct which is the 
> traditional way of supplying water in hot and arid climates within limited 
> distance of a mountain range.


while the description reads quite neutral and inclusive, as if these features 
could occur everywhere on the globe, the term suggests it is very specific to a 
cultural region. Can you explain in what way these are “specialized”, what the 
criteria for the tag are (is this for all kinds of underground aqueducts “in 
hot and arid” climate or are there specific requirements for the term?). Is 
this only about historic features, or are there also modern qanats that get the 
tag? IMHO, if we want to include all kinds of underground aqueducts, something 
more generic would suit better, while I would be fine with tagging actual 
qanats as qanats.

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


[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-19 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
I have updated the existing proposal Qanat:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Qanat

A qanat is a specialized kind of underground aqueduct which is the
traditional way of supplying water in hot and arid climates within limited
distance of a mountain range. It consists of an underground gallery that
drains water from the aquifer at first (collection section) and then
channels it (transport section) along a gentle 1/1000 slope, with a series
of vertical shafts which are artifacts of the building process but also
serve for ventilation and service access, with an opening of the channel
section as it reaches the groundlevel and a further open air canal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat

This proposal would:

1) Approve the tag canal=qanat to be used with the existing tags
waterway=canal + tunnel=* to map the course of a qanat, defined as:

"A gently-sloping man-made underground channel for transporting groundwater
via gravity, with shafts visible from the surface."

2) Deprecate the duplicate tag man_made=qanat

That tag (man_made=qanat) has been used several hundred times, but it is
less appropriate to use the top-level feature tag "man_made" for a kind of
canal tunnel.

There is also discussion of a way to tag the qanat shafts as nodes: they
are vertical excavation and maintenance shafts along the course of the
watercourse which are currently mapped as man_made=excavation +
excavation=qanat_shaft.

This part could be removed from this proposal if it's debatable, but it
would be nice to approve a way to map the shafts as well, since they are
visible on survey and in aerial imagery.

Please comment here or at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Qanat

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