Well, we don’t have to choose the tag that will be rendered, but the proper tag. Also because I don’t think there’s any “arch” tag being rendered right now. I think the important thing now is to standardize the tagging for such archs, if all the community will start using the same tag, tag usage will increase from that 57 objects and maybe the various renders will start being more interested in rendering them.
Little trivia, some countries have tags for special kind of religious archs, such as man_made=paifang in China, =torii in Japan and =hongsalmun in Korea.
Ivan, sure thing we (you and I) do not tag for the renderer, but the renderer (similarly, a favourite router) is used by so many fellow mappers as a first check whether we are mapping things right. So while we do not map for the renderer, I think we should not forget that fellow mappers will map something, expect to see an effect, then choose any reasonable alternative that will be rendered (similarly, obtain the correct route).
I do like the man_made=arch tagging: if I read it, I would associate it with what I see.
The little trivia is interesting, could help us write a tiny overpass query to collect all such objects, candidate to join club of our “man_made=arch” .
seems more than little trivia, these values all have their wiki page, they are used globally, and there’s ways more of them (in particular the Japanese one) than there are plain man_made=arch.
uniting them under the umbrella arch seems to be a good thing.
Well yes, that’s only what’s mentioned. But then you end up with 2 top-level feature for a similar looking overhead-spanning structure. The structure is equally important as the function. While I’m more focused on gantry, still I’m willing to consider something as arch=gantry.
Especially here, most of the candidates for “arch” are not curved at all. Wikipedia generally begins with “gate” in the gateway sense for them. So rather than describing them by their “arch” or whatever structure, the gateway function is more to the point.
IMHO we either replace “man_made” completely (not sure how realistic this is), or if we continue to use it, new tags that fit well should be put there rather than in “artificial”, which doesn’t seem a good general key for what we currently tag in man_made. Key-proliferation is not desirable in general, and here it would lead to unintuitive tagging IMHO. If retagging of “man_made” will come, we can retag these all toghether. “artificial” has almost no use, and it will hardly be evaluated by anyone, will not be imported with common database schemes, and it would be almost impossible to get support for it in the next years by something like nominatim, osm2pgsql or carto, due to the low usage.