On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:24, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> 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
