I apologise if my limited English expression has caused any confusion.
When we commonly refer to a “monument,” we mean a structure erected to commemorate a person or an event. For example, what is often called a “triumphal arch” is primarily constructed to celebrate military victories and to glorify achievements. The term typical monument reflects this commemorative purpose.
However, the ceremonial gate under discussion here does not serve a purpose of praise or propaganda. Rather, it carries significant connotations of solemnity, demanding a respectful attitude and mindset, often conveying a warning. (Of course, in modern times, these meanings may have faded or evolved.)
Importantly, a ceremonial gate is not a building. Because it is not a building, it does not provide a space underneath for resting or other utilitarian uses.
By definition, a “gate” is not a space with a floor area that allows for activities or purposes beyond passage. However, some ceremonial gates may have roofs or enclose a very small area, so this condition is included to clarify that they do not provide functional space for other uses within their boundaries.
Did you take these discussions into account when drafting the proposal? How does the proposed tag historic=ceremonial_gate relate to the structures that were discussed there? Should it be used for them as well or not?
First of all, thank you for your report.
While I am not the proposer of this suggestion—and the proposer(@smallCat) may respond directly if necessary—one of the links you included points to an opinion post I wrote. Since I was also the one who proposed the criteria in this context, I’ll respond accordingly.
Regarding the term “ceremonial gate,” the criteria I proposed are based not merely on its physical form but on its original intended function.
The “ceremonial gate” under discussion here does not simply serve to mark the beginning of a space or act as a portal; it originates from its function as a symbolic boundary between the sacred and the profane.
Additionally, as similar questions seem to arise repeatedly, I would like to offer a further clarification for better understanding.
The practice of establishing symbolic markers to delineate the boundary between the sacred and the profane appears to be a widespread cultural phenomenon that predates the formal development of organized religion.
According to my research and investigation, such symbolic boundary markers are commonly found in East Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, and among Indigenous cultures of the Americas, including ancient American civilizations. However, comparable examples in the so-called Western cultural sphere are relatively scarce. (See example here.)
This scarcity may not necessarily indicate the absence of such symbolic boundary practices in Western cultures, but rather the disappearance of the tradition of erecting physical symbolic structures for this purpose due to various historical and cultural factors.
Indeed, in the West, there remain diverse forms of representing the boundary between the sacred and the secular, though these are often manifested in different architectural expressions, such as entire buildings or structural components.
Based on my investigation, there are instances where this boundary is preserved in the form of entrances to religious sites, cloisters, or city gates. However, in many of these cases, the structures are either not architecturally independent or serve a primary function other than symbolic demarcation, making it difficult to categorize them under the same typology.
Case in point, in recent decades, many village gates in Vietnam bear Communist Party propaganda banners. This doesn’t change the structure’s overall perceived function, but the use of man_made=* for this tag precludes dual-tagging the sign, which is normally tagged as man_made=sign. I guess the village gate would need to be mapped as a separate area to resolve that conflict.
Are we still trying to unify secular structures under the same tag, or only the religious structures with existing tags, such as torii? While paifang and Vietnamese village gates can draw design inspiration from sacred architecture, the purpose is overtly secular: marking the boundary between two sections of a city, or the boundary between a village and the surrounding countryside, or by extension the boundary of a park or other complex. Any religious or protoreligious notion of separating the sacred and profane would be derivative, at most a criterion for deciding the scope of this tag, but not for deciding whether it applies to a particular structure.
The issue of overlapping or redundant tags is something I’ve also been thinking about, and I consider it one of the persistent problems within OSM.
(Please take a look at this post regarding this matter. Of course, I imagine there are many similar cases across OSM as well.)
I suspect the post above reflects similar concerns, but in general, overlapping attributes on a single map feature are always a headache. In fact, it’s quite common to see multiple different tags being applied to a single object.
That said, I’d like to clarify two specific points in response to your suggestion:
First, as I’ve emphasized several times already, in the case of Vietnam, I believe the ceremonial gate tag should only be used for features that clearly qualify as Tam quan.
As @osmuser63783 also pointed out earlier in this thread, simple gantries or portals—even if they share a similar shape—should not be tagged as ceremonial gate.
(Of course, I do understand that in countries where religious symbols are viewed with suspicion or negative sentiment, structures that originally served ceremonial purposes may now function purely as wayfinding signs.)
Beyond Vietnam, this kind of structure—clearly influenced by Chinese architectural styles—also appears commonly at the entrances to villages in various Southeast Asian countries. (Example)
Second, if the primary purpose of the structure is not propaganda or advertising, but rather to serve as a physical object such as a portal, gantry, or gate, then I believe it should be tagged accordingly, based on its original function.
The presence of political or promotional messaging on part of the structure is, in my view, a separate issue.
In such cases, your idea of using an additional, separate tag to reflect those secondary elements might be a good solution.
Hm, OK, I assumed that this discussion stemmed from my comments in the id-tagging-schema repository regarding the Vietnamese village gates (cổng làng), as opposed to tam quan, which are strictly religious. (I think the English Wikipedia is mistaken in this regard.) To be clear, Vietnamese distinguish the two kinds of gates by function, not architecture. So it isn’t an issue of religiosity or secularism.
But I see that the discussion has taken a turn in a different direction. That leaves me at a bit of a loss, since some Vietnamese cổng làng are being tagged as man_made=paifang, regardless of architectural style, and it seemed like mappers focused on China didn’t think that was a good idea. In that case, maybe I can pursue a distinct tag unified with ceremonial archways more generally.
Ah, while I don’t know the detailed specifics within Vietnam, even as an outsider to Vietnam, I could quickly notice that at least 'cổng làng looks somewhat different from ‘paifang’ (牌坊) or ‘Tam quan’ in terms of appearance, and I confirmed that Wikipedia describes their origins as completely different as well.
Therefore, I think it would be wrong to tag 'cổng làng as ‘Tam quan’ or even further as ‘Paifang,’ even for someone who is unfamiliar with Vietnamese culture.
Of course, 牌坊 and Tam quan might look very similar to people from outside Vietnam, but I believe this becomes clear when you check which regional culture they were created from.
Cổng làng literally means “village gate”, similar to how 牌坊 paifang literally means “ward sign”. Cổng làng originally had a simple, functional form, and some folk styles developed from that. Then due to Buddhist influence, a style resembling tam quan became a popular option, probably the most popular today outside of Vietnam. As I understand it, tam quan already somewhat resembled paifang due to Chinese influence. (This style became popular among other religions too.) So in terms of physical characteristics, it’s all mixed up and difficult to categorize, but in terms of function, it’s always the same: marking the edge of the village, ward, or compound. By contrast, a tam quan is always associated with a spiritual center of some sort.
Please understand that the concept of a “building” in OSM is different from that in general architecture.
In OSM, almost any structure that has an area is considered a building — even if it has only a roof and no walls at all.
Please understand that the concept of a “building” in OSM is different from that in general architecture.
the english wikipedia offers a very inclusive definition for building: “ A building is ‘a structure that has a roof and walls and stands more or less permanently in one place’;[1] “there was a three-storey building on the corner”; “it was an imposing edifice”. In the broadest interpretation a fence or wall is a building.[2] However, the word structure is used more broadly than building, to include natural and human-made formations[3] and ones that do not have walls; structure is more often used for a fence.”
there are different definitions that can be considered, e.g. under legal aspects there might be official definitions (i.e. also differing dependent on the jurisdiction) and the common usage.
In German there are mostly the same but maybe slightly different connotations, it is expected a building can be entered, it must have a roof but walls are not necessarily required (the definition is something like: a structure that can be entered and is built for the protection of people, animals or things). There are also different words that can be used to express building and similar: Gebäude (the smallest subset, requires a roof, can be entered), Bauwerk (human made construction, broader, including e.g. bridges and tunnels), bauliche Anlage (including even e.g. a parking surface or other human made outdoor surfaces)
Yes, tam quan can often be substantial structures like this, even with a loft upstairs. It’s one style, among several. Another common style of tam quan is called tứ trụ (four pillars), consisting of four pillars holding up a simple beam, maybe with a tiny roof. That seems to be the style that others here had in mind when associating tam quan with torii or classifying them as non-buildings.
Regardless, tam quan literally means “three vistas”, an overtly Buddhist message. The essential aspect is the three portals. The number three has been adapted to other religions (e.g., the Trinity in Christianity) and secular purposes (a village gate having a portal for the street and two portals for the sidewalks). But it’s simply incorrect to describe a secular village gate as a tam quan, even if it has an identical form factor.
I reviewed the “Tam quan” of Vietnam, traditional Buddhist temples of Japan and China, and made some adjustments to the content. For reference, Korea’s “Iljumun” and “Hongsalmun” are clearly distinguished in terms of their function and shape, but in some cultural contexts, there is a blending of shape and function, which I have taken into account.
Respectfully disagreed on your claim these structure have the history (sic) meaning. At least in Japan it’s not right. It may be right in a state religion is under state control but in states freedom of belief is exercised, we rather see more often those symbols without historic significance but just serving for its current community in its function to separate religiously sacred space from profane ones.
I asked OP whether they have historic significance. I have no opinion either way.
Thanks for sharing your view, which furthers the idea that they shouldn’t be tagged as historic structures.
Oh? In Japanese Buddhism there is no such specific gates discussed here. In Japan, if a temple is walled, it has one or more gates of course but they are placed from architectural necessity, not for religions meaning. What do you actually think Japanese Buddhism temples component in this context? Can you please show some images?
Sorry for my misplacement! I won’t disagree to tag historic structures among them as historic, but at the same time we should notice not every religious construction is historic. Some of those constructions may be just installed very on this day.
“there are increasing cases where they are treated merely as tourist monuments.” only by profane tourists. Its original religious meaning is not lost. They are so profane so that a shrine in Tsushima decided to ban all tourists mostly foreigners. It is no good idea for us to accelerate such profanity only because some people dare offence, tagging them not sacred.
I think earlier mentions of “the profane” referred to the academic sense of the word, rather than any value judgment. It isn’t about vulgarities. This was confusing. Another of the proposed criteria mentions “secular”, which is a much better word choice:
That said, I don’t know if the revised criteria will be effective in promoting the kind of tagging usage that is envisioned here. As a general matter, mappers base their tagging decisions on preset icons and labels in editors; longer ontological explanations on the wiki are only good for helping mappers figure out edge cases. Will mappers be able to intuit why paifang are within scope but cổng làng are out of scope? Or will mappers unfamiliar with the term paifang see a cổng làng and tag it as the same thing because the icon looks similar enough? Does “ceremonial” merely contrast with mundane barrier=gate or highly technical man_made=gantry?
A generic umbrella tag like man_made=ceremonial_gate has the advantage of lessening the impact of an incorrect classification. But if we don’t make a decisive choice between form or function, then the tag will ultimately get diluted to the point of meaning something like man_made=gateway or man_made=archway. That wouldn’t be such a bad thing overall – we do need a tag for archways more generally – but it seems like an unsatisfying outcome for those who care about these sacred and not-quite-sacred-but-not-quite-profane structures.
Or most mappers, who aren’t from East / SE Asia, & whom have absolutely no idea of what these words mean, when all they’re trying to do is map an entrance way into somewhere?
