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 <[email protected]> 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, < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
