If I come to a normal temple with a normal Stupa (because I can’t tell the difference between them), which tag should be the first that comes to mind when I want to tag it? I don’t care much about this whole discussion, I just want to go out into the world and start tagging Stupas.
Don’t take this in a provocative way, but I think there could be a standard for how we generally tag Stupas unless they are clearly special (e.g. a monument).
I think it’s a fairly straight forward tagging situation. I tag the place_of_worship using either a closed way or node as appropriate, then I tag the stupa as a node or closed way with man_made=tower and tower:type=stupa. In other words I’m tagging the stupa as a structure only and not ascribing any other significance to it. If it sits atop or is part of a place_of_worship, or a monument, so be it. Use a node or a closed way for either, or both, structures. The two major tags are not mutually exclusive because at top level one is an amenity and the other is man_made.
I’m in the process of working out a Garmin icon for stupa with the Lambertus folks. Hopefully we will end up with something for OSM as well.
I think it’s a fairly straight forward tagging situation. I tag the place_of_worship using either a closed way or node as appropriate, then I tag the stupa as a node or closed way with man_made=tower and tower:type=stupa. In other words I’m tagging the stupa as a structure only and not ascribing any other significance to it. If it sits atop or is part of a place_of_worship, or a monument, so be it. Use a node or a closed way for either, or both, structures. The two major tags are not mutually exclusive because at top level one is an amenity and the other is man_made.
I’m in the process of working out a Garmin icon for stupa with the Lambertus folks. Hopefully we will end up with something for OSM as well.
Sounds great, and thanks for the answer.
I am confused. So, on the one hand you say there is not consensus to tag stupas, on the other hand, what you basically say is that all should be labeled now as tower-stupas, even though we have established that many are not.
Now, if other stupas are labeled differently, e.g. all the ones labeled as monument-stupa, will they also render properly with the Garmin icon? If not, shouldn’t we as community decide on a single way of tagging stupas so they all render appropriately?
monument=stupa is used 91 times on a single site, the Erdene Zuu Monastery
47.2015302, 102.8432013
and then at only three more places in Cambodia. So in total used at four sites.
tower:type=stupa is more widespread and used by more people.
Given that with the bell towers we have a similar concept already I’m in slight favor of the tower:type tagging.
Did you already ask for input at a wider audience on the tagging list?
Given that stupa is not used that much yet, I think there is still time to arrive at a consensus. I thought indeed the idea was to get a consensus from a wider audience. Given we have already non-intuitive tags, it seemed to me that one should try to avoid that. I have outlined above - I can summarize again if desired - why I think tower is such a good idea for stupa since many are not towers.
Bell tower may seem like a similar concept, but it is actually derived from real towers, hence natural.
Sometimes there is no consensus.
It’s because OSM is a living system of tagging habits.
It changes, develops and evolves.
See the way to tag addresses and house numbers. There existed different strategies to do so. Or public transport.
And there is not “a single ruler” in OSM to make final decisions.
If you’re looking for strict tagging rules, maybe OSM is not the right place for you. Did you have a look at Google’s Map Maker?
Jo brought in another aspect regarding chedis.
She would like to distinguish these still actively “used”, usually located in a temple and the more “historic” ones just being there as you won’t tear them down.
I think I had tagged the later ones historic=ruins. Not sure it’s the best way to do. If you can come up with a better way of tagging, please do so.
Well, perhaps in a way you are right that something like MapMaker might be what I’m looking for. On the other hand, the reason I went now with OSM is that one can download the maps without constantly being connect to some network, that’s really the attraction - an open source map.
Still, there seems to be sort of a split personality, on the one hand people discuss and agree, and other, everybody can do what they want… Ok, it’s exaggerated, but I guess you get my gist. I’m not looking for a big navtec document, but a few more guidelines, that can also help newcomers, wouldn’t that be useful?
Yes, I have been thinking about this as well as you can see in some of my points above. Have to look at the latest status of “ruin”.
ok, it seems there are basically two ways of doing it, not clear if the proposal went ahead.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ruins
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features
so, you can have ruins=castle
or you can have historic=castle, ruins=yes
the ruins yes/no is used in other situations as well, e.g. windmills i.e. man_made=windmill, ruins=yes
The latter would of course allow description of pretty much anything as I sort of was contemplating above already
i.e.
man_made=temple, ruins=yes not clear what is better, needs some more thought.
So, you’re proposing adding a new man_made=temple tag?
I like the ruins=yes tag because it allows one to tag any ruins regardless of historical value, about which a casual mapper might not be aware. I’m not sure how it affects the tower:type=stupa discussion, however.
No definite proposal yet, just thinking out loud, seems still ongoing discussions perhaps. But in any case,
yes, the ruins=yes does sound good, because it could potentially be attached to building.
as to stupa, yes, it’s off a tangent a bit, on the other hand, stupa could be just a part of the whole framework of how to label wats/temples/palaces and their ruined variants.
One has to cover Mon/Dvaravati, Khmer, and the Thai historical periods for that. Periods before that, e.g. Ban Chiang, Ban Prasat, etc. can be covered with the archeological tags.