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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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 ( >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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, > >

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

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: >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)?

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

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: >

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

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

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

Hi Martin, I may not fully understand the historic tag, but to me it is unlikely that every qanat is of historic interest, "of sufficient importance to justify use of this tag". In some areas, every village has three qanats. It would be like mapping every fountain as historic. They're often not

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

> In case of a well, as the aquifer is below your starting point, I’d think you would need some kind of pump and not just gravity (at the beginning)? Look at the diagram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat#/media/File:Qanat-3.svg or

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

sent from a phone > On 21. Jun 2020, at 01:59, Paul Allen wrote: > >> Can there be old underground water conveying structures that people have dug >> into the ground, that are not “historic”? Can you explain what kind of >> situation you are thinking about? > > The tag historic=* is not a

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

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 00:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I do not follow. Can there be old underground water conveying structures > that people have dug into the ground, that are not “historic”? Can you > explain what kind of situation you are thinking about? > The tag historic=* is not a

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

sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 09:33, Joseph Guillaume wrote: > > That's right - what I meant is that we should not treat every qanat as > historic just because it is old. I do not follow. Can there be old underground water conveying structures that people have dug into the

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

sent from a phone >> On 20. Jun 2020, at 20:39, Joseph Eisenberg >> wrote: > The immediate source of water is groundwater (aquifer or well), not a spring, > stream or river > Water flows by gravity in free flow (not pressurized or pipe flow) > The channel is underground (minimising

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

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:35:43 +0100 Paul Allen wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:24, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> I agree with this, maybe we can make the description even more >> explicit to underline that these are specific features with a >> specific temporal and cultural background

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

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:16:52 +0100 Philip Barnes wrote: >On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 15:42 +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: >> >> And we already have plenty of those: >> >> Piste >> Gabion >> Kindergarten >> chicane >> kneipp_water_cure >> bureau_de_change >> aikido >> krachtbal >> boules >>

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

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

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

> Most existing uses of man_made=qanat by the way are in combination with waterway=canal. Thank you for mentioning this. There are only 5 ways with man_made=qanat, without waterway=* - https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Viq I will update the proposal page with this information. So there is no debate

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

BTW, Arabic is not commonly spoken in Iran (Persia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Iran The definition on the proposal page is not limited to a particular culture: there may be functioning examples of such features in the Americas (built

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

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

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

sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > in the sense of using a non-English and non-European term where the most > descriptive and clear term comes from a non-European language. We have other > cases of such tags in OSM but still in a proposal process

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

> Paul Allen hat am 20. Juni 2020 um 15:46 geschrieben: > Erm, nope, I didn't say that. I said that if British English has a name > for something > then we should use it. I didn't say that we should force square pegs into > round holes. To me it isn't whether it's called a qanat or an >

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

G. The keyboard on this laptop is annoying. To finish an unfinished message... On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 14:40, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 14:31, Christoph Hormann wrote: > >> > loan words. Qanat IS a word that appears in English dictionaries and >> it IS >> > the British

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

Paul Allen: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 13:17, Christoph Hormann > wrote: > > > I think this is a good idea.  Both in the sense of establishing a distinct > tagging for it that does not engross qanats with other types of > underground > waterways and in the

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

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 14:31, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > loan words. Qanat IS a word that appears in English dictionaries and it > IS > > the British English name for such structures. > > That might be the case here - but only because English speakers have > started communicating about this

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

> loan words. Qanat IS a word that appears in English dictionaries and it IS > the British English name for such structures. That might be the case here - but only because English speakers have started communicating about this kind of thing using that term quite a long time ago. This is not

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

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 13:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > I think this is a good idea. Both in the sense of establishing a distinct > tagging for it that does not engross qanats with other types of underground > waterways and in the sense of using a non-English and non-European term > where

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

I think this is a good idea. Both in the sense of establishing a distinct tagging for it that does not engross qanats with other types of underground waterways and in the sense of using a non-English and non-European term where the most descriptive and clear term comes from a non-European

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

On 20/6/20 9:35 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 20. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Joseph Guillaume wrote: I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about whether to tag qanats - it's about whether to tag them with man_made=qanat or waterway=canal+canal=qanat.

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

Hi Martin, > for me „historic“ does not necessarily imply it is not active. That's right - what I meant is that we should not treat every qanat as historic just because it is old. So we need to map the fact there is a qanat, and then someone with local knowledge needs to map whether it is

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

sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 02:10, Joseph Guillaume wrote: > > somebody else needs to map whether it is historical or active. for me „historic“ does not necessarily imply it is not active. Have a look at the historic key, most things are „active“:

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

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

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

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

[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

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

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

> 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.

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

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 > >

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

> 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

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

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"

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

[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

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