If the religious function is the motive for separating these isolated porches of any devoted to commemoration (triumphal arches in Europa, for example), one must examinate the monumental entries to a number of cemeteries in Europa and others continents too. In Brittany, there is a small region where the edifices in the christian cemetery around the church were build with the desire to emulate with the near parishes in 16th and 17th centuries. A massive porch made of stones is placed at the main entry of the Enclos paroissial (fr) or Kloz Iliz (breton), the name used for the entire ground. If « ceremonial gate » is voted, I suggest that historic porches for the ancient cemeteries will be considered as well.
Christian Rogel, Brittany
This is absolutely wonderful!
I’ve always thought that building structures to mark the boundary between the sacred and the secular was a fairly universal phenomenon in human culture.
(And in fact, if we don’t focus too much on the specific shapes, many such boundary-marking structures do exist.)
However, I wasn’t able to find examples of gate or arch-like structures in the Western world that specifically served to divide sacred and secular spaces.
I suspect this might not be due to the absence of such traditions in the West, but rather because they may have been absorbed into or covered over by more systematized forms of religion.
The triumphal arch in the Enclos paroissial you shared seems to match exactly the kind of structure I had in mind. - View Image
If you happen to know of any other similar structures in the Western world that played this kind of role, I would greatly appreciate it if you could share them as well.
This is just a light, off-topic comment, but …
Interestingly, it’s a bit puzzling that a sacred structure marking the boundary between the secular and the sacred is called something as secular-sounding as “Arc de Triomphe.”
It seems that the function of the structure was emphasized, while the name wasn’t given much theological consideration.
According to my research, it’s also referred to as “Porte monumentale” or “Porte triomphale”—which, again, sound quite secular as well.
At this point, I think we need to discuss an important issue.
It’s the question of how to classify the structure generally referred to as a “triumphal arch,” which, while similar in form and function across contexts, carries somewhat different meanings.
Personally, I don’t think the name itself is what really matters.
For instance, the religious structure mentioned just above is also called a “triumphal arch”, but in that case, its function is to mark the boundary between the sacred and the secular.
However, the more commonly known “triumphal arch”—as in those built to commemorate military victories or honor certain figures—seems to me to be more of a monument.
(Of course, from the perspective of those in power who built it, they may have intended to declare a kind of sacred authority through it.)
So, what do you think?
When a triumphal arch is built to commemorate a victory or honor someone, is it a monument, or would you consider it a ceremonial gate or ceremonial arch?
This might be architectural jargon. If this term is being applied to the gateways of parish closes, it may be only a simile to the secular monumental gateways more commonly known as triumphal arches. I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to infer so much meaning from this use of the term. After all, architectural historians are generally more interested in the artistic form of a structure than, say, religious scholars or anthropologists.
The only remaining feedback of mine is that the tag has a very specific definition, but both Vietnamese cổng tam quan and cổng làngsometimes defy this definition. I do agree that having clear criteria is useful for avoiding a slippery slope.
Since very few Vietnamese gates have been mapped in the first place, I guess we can resolve this by saying that the definition is a guideline, a rule of thumb, rather than a firm rule in every case. After the vote, we can tweak the documentation to give a more nuanced understanding of tam quan, as long as the folks involved in this conversation are OK with that approach informally.
Since voting on man_made=ceremonial_gate is now underway…
Symbolic entrance gates
@smallCat would you tag the following structures as man_made=ceremonial_gate?
From what I understand, these are symbolic entrance gates that mark the boundary between two secular spaces (e.g. they mark the entrance to some neighbourhood or resort), so they lack any religious meaning.
I asked this question above in this thread, and @adreamy suggested that they should not be tagged as a “ceremonial gate”. But that was a while ago, when we were discussing historic=ceremonial_gate. Now the proposal has changed to man_made=ceremonial_gate, and I am not so sure any more, even after reading the proposal. What do you think, @smallCat ?
The picture used on the OSM wiki for man_made=paifang is this commemorative arch that was built in 1882 to commemorate a widow.
On the topic of commemorative gates or arches, the proposal says
These gates:
Have the shape of a gate but do not have door panels
Are not attached to adjacent buildings
Do not obstruct passage — they are symbolic, not functional barriers
Have religious, cultural, or commemorative significance
Broader applicability
…
Structures like South Indian Gopuram, Islamic Bab, and European triumphal arches are not included due to their architectural, functional, or commemorative nature.
(Emphasis mine)
After reading the proposal I am not sure when commemorative gates fall under the tag and when they do not. Wikipedia has a long list of memorial gates and arches in Europe, North America, and Asia. It includes monumtal ones like the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin but also smaller ones like these memorial gates on the campus of the University of Saskatchewan. If I am looking at a memorial gate, how do I know whether to use the tag man_made=ceremonial_gate or not?
It depends on whether the gate has religious, cultural, or commemorative significance. For example, in e.g. 4, I would tag it as man_made=ceremonial_gate and ceremonial_gate=paifang.
For examples 1, 2, and 3, I think they do not have religious, cultural, or commemorative significance, so they probably shouldn’t be tagged as man_made=ceremonial_gate. However, if they do have such significance, they could be tagged as man_made=ceremonial_gate and ceremonial_gate=yes (as a general, unclassified value).
This outcome might be inevitable either way. It seems to me that it is not alway clear if a particular non-utilitarian gate qualifies as ceremonial or if it is merely commemorative or symbolic. It’s a rather fine distinction that may be lost on the average mapper. Even if we were to have two separate top level tags for these things, usage would probably end up overlapping just like natural=wood and landuse=forest. An optional sub-tag distinguishing the purpose of the non-utilitarian gate would probably work out well though.
Top level tag seems fine but this seems redundant. What extra info is that giving? In the proposal that sub-key is to provide local tradition or style, “yes” is neither of those. So I’d suggest just omitting the sub-key if the tradition or style is not known.
So, what do you think?