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 <o...@imagico.de> 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