[Tagging] mapping qanats

[Michał Sałaban]

Hi,

I've just created a proposal page about tagging qanats:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Qanat

I hope you will help me to find a good way of mapping these features
little known in western world :)

Cheers,

-- 
Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Janko Mihelić]

Wow, I never heard of qanats.

man_made=qanat and qanat=shaft sound ok, although I would rather use
waterway=qanat. I see there are only 3  man_made=qanats mapped right now,
so there is no problems with changing those.

Janko


2013/9/27 Michał Sałaban 

> Hi,
>
> I've just created a proposal page about tagging qanats:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Qanat
>
> I hope you will help me to find a good way of mapping these features
> little known in western world :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Michał
>
> ___
> 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] mapping qanats

[John Sturdy]

I'm not sure whether this should have its own tag; how different is it
from either an underground pipeline or an underground canal?

__John

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Matthijs Melissen]

According to Wikipedia, qanat's are known under different names in other
parts of the world (kethara, galerias, foggara, ...). Wouldn't it be
possible to use a more generic name?

Also, wouldn't we be able to use waterway=canal, tunnel=yes (or whatever
tag we use for underground waterways)? Possibly combined with qanat=yes?
That would increase the chance of them being rendered on general-purpose
maps.

-- Matthijs


On 27 September 2013 01:35, Michał Sałaban  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've just created a proposal page about tagging qanats:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Qanat
>
> I hope you will help me to find a good way of mapping these features
> little known in western world :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Michał
>
> ___
> 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] mapping qanats

[John Sturdy]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Matthijs Melissen
 wrote:
> According to Wikipedia, qanat's are known under different names in other
> parts of the world (kethara, galerias, foggara, ...). Wouldn't it be
> possible to use a more generic name?
>
> Also, wouldn't we be able to use waterway=canal, tunnel=yes (or whatever tag
> we use for underground waterways)? Possibly combined with qanat=yes?

Or perhaps waterway=canal, tunnel=yes, canal=qanat?

Or man_made=pipeline, location=underground, type=water?

I think I'd call it a pipeline if the water fills it to the roof of
the tunnel, and a canal if there's air above the water (which seems to
be the case, as Wikipedia mentions air from the tunnels being used for
cooling).

If anyone's going to map to that level of detail, will "depth" refer
to the draught of the water channel (depth from bottom to top of the
water), or depth of the whole thing below the ground surface?

> That
> would increase the chance of them being rendered on general-purpose maps.

+1

See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_network

__John

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Michał Sałaban]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:00 PM, John Sturdy  wrote:

>> Also, wouldn't we be able to use waterway=canal, tunnel=yes (or whatever tag
>> we use for underground waterways)? Possibly combined with qanat=yes?
>
> Or perhaps waterway=canal, tunnel=yes, canal=qanat?

This makes sense. It also leaves possibility for mapping open qanats,
which go on the surface. This happens sometimes in the end sections,
before the water gets divided among recipients.

> Or man_made=pipeline, location=underground, type=water?
>
> I think I'd call it a pipeline if the water fills it to the roof of
> the tunnel, and a canal if there's air above the water (which seems to
> be the case, as Wikipedia mentions air from the tunnels being used for
> cooling).

Qanats are not pipelines, there's usually plenty of space above the
water. Some of them would collapse when filled, as the upper part is
not protected against water.

> If anyone's going to map to that level of detail, will "depth" refer
> to the draught of the water channel (depth from bottom to top of the
> water), or depth of the whole thing below the ground surface?

I think it should mean the depth of the bottom of the qanat relative
to the ground surface. The depth of water is variable with seasons and
of less importance.

How do we map the shafts then? It is similar to manhole=* in some way,
but also serves for ventilation purposes.

-- 
Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Janko Mihelić]

I think this is quite a unique structure that can't be described with
"canal". Especially if the main reason is rendering. Canals are not used
for drinking water, the concept is entirely different. If I had to use
anything, I would use aqueduct ,
but I would rather use waterway=qanat.

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Brad Neuhauser]

man_made=pipeline, pipeline=qanat?  This is similar to how the aqueduct
page proposes to tag modern aqueducts, but qanats seem a distinct type of
structure from aqueducts due to the vertical wells.  (And I agree with
John's point that it is not really like a pipeline, but I'd argue that OSM
often uses terms in a non-literal way to group related features)

Brad


On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> I think this is quite a unique structure that can't be described with
> "canal". Especially if the main reason is rendering. Canals are not used
> for drinking water, the concept is entirely different. If I had to use
> anything, I would use aqueduct,
> but I would rather use waterway=qanat.
>
> Janko
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] mapping qanats

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 27/set/2013 um 12:18 schrieb Matthijs Melissen :
> 
> Also, wouldn't we be able to use waterway=canal, tunnel=yes (or whatever tag 
> we use for underground waterways)? Possibly combined with qanat=yes?


I'd rather use something like canal_type=qanat instead of sth looking like an 
attribute

cheers,
Martin


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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Matthijs Melissen]

On Sep 27, 2013 3:34 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:
>
> > Am 27/set/2013 um 12:18 schrieb Matthijs Melissen <
i...@matthijsmelissen.nl>:
> >
> > Also, wouldn't we be able to use waterway=canal, tunnel=yes (or
whatever tag we use for underground waterways)? Possibly combined with
qanat=yes?
>
>
> I'd rather use something like canal_type=qanat instead of sth looking
like an attribute

For everyone suggesting this: that seems indeed a better solution than what
I proposed.

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Janko Mihelić]

On the canal wiki article  it
says "An artificial open waterway used for transportation, waterpower, or
irrigation." I guess we have to add "drinking water" to that list.

When you look at the Wikipedia canal
article,
there is nothing remotely similar to a qanat.

I really don't understand why we have to flatten complexity of all types of
waterways into a few different tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Michał Sałaban]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> When you look at the Wikipedia canal article, there is nothing remotely
> similar to a qanat.

It is not, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_(water_supply)
looks more similar and even lists qanat as a form of aqueduct.

Perhaps we could do it like this:
waterway=aqueduct
and:
aqueduct=bridge — for the "usual" aqueducts placed overground on pillars,
aqueduct=surface — for the ground-level ones, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arizona_cap_canal.jpg
aqueduct=qanat — for qanat

However it might create confusion with already existing bridge=aqueduct.

-- 
Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Martin Koppenhöfer]

Am 27.09.2013 um 21:33 schrieb Michał Sałaban :

> However it might create confusion with already existing bridge=aqueduct.


IMHO bridge=aqueduct is nonsense, we also don't use bridge=highway or railway, 
and aqueducts don't have to be bridges, they are also underground, or on solid 
walls/foundations.

FWIW I am using historic=aqueduct around here for historic aqueducts (I.e. 
mostly fragments and not a continuous working duct), and would expect sth like 
man_made as key for working ones, maybe also waterway would be fine.

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Michał Sałaban]

OK, I gathered the three ideas here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Qanat#Tagging

Any thoughts on it? Preferences?

I realized it is not easy to make a distinction between canal and
aqueduct, but we may assume that the latter is usually for drinking
water or irrigation of small areas of land. Everything dealing with
navigation, flood protection or vast area irrigation would be rather a
canal.

-- 
Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

[Janko Mihelić]

2013/9/28 Michał Sałaban 

>
> I realized it is not easy to make a distinction between canal and
> aqueduct, but we may assume that the latter is usually for drinking
> water or irrigation of small areas of land. Everything dealing with
> navigation, flood protection or vast area irrigation would be rather a
> canal.
>

Yes, it's a fuzzier distinction than I thought. After a bit of reading i
guess an aqueduct is any man made structure that carries water, for
whatever purpose, even navigating boats. So canal is a type of aqueduct.

I like waterway=aqueduct. If it's on a bridge, bridge=yes, if it is on a
wall, barrier=wall. Quanat gets a tunnel=yes, and aqueduct=quanat. For the
holes maybe something like man_made=shaft?

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