Description: This tag is for culturally or historically important gates that are ceremonial or symbolic in function, such as pafang (Chinese archway), torii (Japanese shrine gate), or hongsalmun (Korean gate). These structures are not functional barriers or entrances but serve ritual, decorative, or symbolic purposes.
Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.
Please, cross post this announcement on the tagging mailing list on my behalf by sending an email to: tagging@openstreetmap.org*
Since the proposal aims at all such gates - what exactly makes (all of) them of historical interest to be put under the historic=* key?
[They are] Not always suitable under man_made=* due to cultural and historical significance
If a specific one is of historical significance, you may want to add historic=yes. But that’s not a blanket reason to avoid man_made. In fact, I think man_made=ceremonial_gate fits quite nicely, and is much closer to the current tagging which also uses man_made=*.
I also don’t really like the :type subkey. A better name for it might be shape to describe the outer appearance. Or just simply ceremonial_gate=* as the main value.
The proposal states " to represent traditional symbolic gates in East Asian cultural regions.", but why should there be a generic main tag for specifically East Asian gates? If the proposal aims at limiting it to this specific subset, I think it should say so already in the key.
man_made=ceremonial_gate is also ok. I choose historic because most of these structure have the history meaning, and osmChina members agree to use it. If the osm community think man_made=ceremonial_gate is better than historic=ceremonial_gate, I will change the proposal.
I think building=triumphal_arch is not suitable, because paifang, torii, hongsalmun don’t have any “arch”
Your example use man_made=paifang, it is the currently popular tagging scheme for paifang. There are also man_made=torii, man_made=hongsalmun for the similar structure in japan and korean. However, the current tagging does not capture the commonality between paifang, torii, and hongsalmun — my intention is to use a single tag that ties them together.
These “ceremonial gates” as proposed are gateways. Like any barrier=gate, it’s a threshold, but a gateway emphasizes welcoming the public in rather than keeping the public out. We would need to decide whether this tag is focused on traditional East Asian architecture or whether it can include village gates in other cultures.
I guess technically a triumphal arch would also be a kind of ceremonial gate, but those tend to be so substantial that I’d have no qualms about continuing to tag them as buildings.
For those of us who are unfamiliar, what would you consider to be the difference? The English Wikipedia and Wiktionary both regard the two terms as synonyms. Just guessing based on the characters, paifang 牌坊 means something like city ward sign (because these gates originally stood at the border of a city ward) while pailou 牌樓 means sign building. Is there more nuance than that?
I’m of two minds about this. As I mentioned in the name-suggestion-index pull request on GitHub, Vietnam uses village gates for a similar purpose as paifang. Traditionally, Vietnamese village gates had a different architectural style than the Chinese ones:
But Chinese-inspired architecture is also popular these days. For example, this gate stands in front of a Vietnamese shopping mall:
The literal meaning is close. Pailou can be said as those with at least roofs, an elaborate supporting structure (dougong), and even a building-floor-like superstructure. Wiki’s Simplified Chinese page is actually different, mentioning this definition, and leaving man_made=pailou as to be discussed. Zh-hans:Tag:man_made=paifang - OpenStreetMap Wiki
Currently, someone self-documented paifang:gables= . This is not very well-named, and doesn’t directly show the number of levels/tiers. The counting doesn’t work when intermediate roofs are continuous, spanning across multiple openings.
Other gateways have different complications, eg for =torii
Apparently someone called this a “Tied” (rope) torii, but it doesn’t seem to be correct. It should be tied poles/rocks (shime-bashira / shime-ishi). File:Shime torii.svg - Wikimedia Commons
The proposer has already clarified certain criteria, including: “Not ordinary access-control gates”, “Not generic monuments”, and “Due to its cultural and historical significance, it is not appropriate to classify it merely as a ‘man-made’ object (man_made=*)”.
Building upon that foundation, I would like to articulate my own understanding of what constitutes a “ceremonial gate”.
The semantic characteristics should generally be understood as the following: a boundary of a sacred space + a symbolic gateway.
Furthermore, if the origin of a structure aligns with these characteristics, it should be regarded accordingly, even if it was constructed in modern times.
However, structures that merely imitate the outward form without following this origin—such as simple replicas, monuments, or commemorative installations—should be considered open to debate.
The primary formal characteristics are as follows:
A non-architectural structure primarily composed of columns, typically lacking full wall enclosures or incorporating only partial, non-substantial wall elements.
An open configuration that does not enclose space in a spatial or functional sense.
A structurally independent and freestanding form, not physically connected to larger architectural entities.
It serves no utilitarian purpose beyond marking the threshold of a space and signaling its sacredness or ceremonial importance—i.e., it is not used for dwelling, resting, waiting, or shelter.
It typically takes the form of a gate or portal at the entrance of a defined space, though it may also consist of free-standing pillars adjacent to a path—in any case, it does not take the form of a building.
The distinction between non-architectural structures and buildings may warrant further examination, but for the purposes of consistent classification, it is reasonable to limit the scope to non-building structures.
Additional structures that exhibit similar symbolic functions include:
The Sacred Grove Entrances in Yoruba regions of Africa and the Lychgate in the United Kingdom.
There are also noteworthy variations:
The [Lychgate - Wikipedia Lychgate] in Britain may feature more than four columns and partial walling, but still maintains an overall open form.
Bali’s [Candi bentar - Wikipedia Candi Bentar] in Indonesia consists of two split structures flanking a path, rather than forming a continuous arch or gate.
In Tibetan Buddhism, chortens take the form of stupas and are associated with the conceptual transition into a sacred space upon passing them. This ritualized sense of boundary formation occurs even in the absence of a defined gate structure. In this respect, it warrants consideration whether chortens may be viewed as functionally analogous to structures such as the Candi Bentar of Bali, Indonesia.
Some structures, though similar in purpose (marking sacred boundaries), fall outside the defined scope due to their architectural nature or additional functional complexity. Examples include:
South India’s [Gopuram - Wikipedia Gopuram], which are monumental gateways integrated into temple complexes and considered architectural buildings.
The Islamic Bab(باب) found in the Middle East, which serve as city gates or entrances to religious compounds but are architecturally enclosed.
I think the original motivation for man_made=paifang was that paifang are secular structures, as opposed to torii, which are religious. It was too much of a stretch to apply man_made=torii to something so different in architecture and significance. Some of the examples in your list are also religious structures. The Vietnamese Buddhist three-door gate (cổng tam quan) has influenced the popular style of secular village gates (cổng làng) to have three aisles and faux roofs (or “gables” as documented), but village gates would never be called tam quan.
These can easily fall under the umbrella of “ceremonial gate”, but it raises the question of whether to also include gateways that are functionally equivalent to these secular structures yet architecturally even more distinct from East Asian religious or folk architecture. After all, nothing about the term “ceremonial gate” would literally imply three aisles, faux roofs, or any relation to East Asia.
It seems reasonable to me that there could be a top level tag for a ceremonial gate of any kind and then a subtag or two to specify the architectural style and/or purpose.
Edit: here are some more examples of other types of free-standing ceremonial gates.
Everyone would probably agree that map features do not always have a single, clear-cut attribute, nor are multiple attributes always distinctly separated.
When major attributes are similar or multiple attributes overlap, it may be reasonable to group them into the same category.
Although China’s Paifang is now commonly used to mark village boundaries or serve as a regional symbol, it shares the same origin as other similar structures, and its secular reinterpretation is known to have emerged in the latter half of the 20th century.
In Japan as well, while Torii are still primarily used to signify sacred spaces, there are increasing cases where they are treated merely as tourist monuments.
Therefore, I believe this should be considered as just one among many attributes—not a decisive factor on its own.
That’s also why I proposed a set of criteria for distinction in the comment above.
)
