What tags should be attached to structures that are neither gates nor even gatehouses?

A roof is a building open on at least two sides. It does not need to have a practical use.

1 Like

Youah, that is the definition the wiki gives. Nevertheless I believe nobody would spend money to construct a roof without any use. If a rooflike construction does not serve any practical use it is build for decorative purpose and then it is a kind of artwork. Again not all of these structures are roof like as you have noted yourself. The structure in pic. # 3 or the Abuja City Gate are definitey no roofs and it would not make much sense imho to tag part of these structures as roof and others as tower or arc.

But well, it’s subject to interpretation as long as there is no documentation in the wiki for such element.

Note that the two points of view may not be mutually exclusive. There are conventional objects (of practical use) that can be artworks at the same time.

This is a very interesting discussion, although we would be getting off topic.

picassian-seat
Picassian Seat, artwork (and bench) by Machú Harras in Malaga, Spain. Source: own work (CC BY-SA 4.0) available on Wikimedia Commons.

For me, these are not structures intended to fulfill a highway-related function, such as highway=toll_gantry or man_made=gantry.

while they don’t have a technical function (apparently, I wouldn’t be astonished if there were some surveillance cams attached in some cases), they serve as symbolic entrances for the highway

Thank you for your feedback.
The examples above are by no means representative of all similar structures, but I wanted to be as inclusive as possible.
Such things can be called ‘arch’ or ‘portal’, and can be viewed as artwork, and some have a monumental character.
But I don’t think any of them are enough to clearly represent all of their properties and forms, so I’m asking you for your opinion.

First e.g. 1 and e.g. 2 is difficult to call an artwork or a monument and does not have enough area to be called a ‘roof’ (some similar structures are barely linear).
I think the common characteristic of the structures I wanted to show is that they act as “gateways” (signaling that an area begins here).
There are already other appropriate tags, but something similar in East Asia would be Iljumun, Hongsalmun, Torii, and Paifang. These are also intended to mark the beginning of a territory and have religious significance.
(The difference is that the above examples only mark the beginning of a territory).

1 Like

Previously:

  1. How to tag an arch **symbolising** entry to area
  2. [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.
  3. Talk:Tag:man made=torii - OpenStreetMap Wiki

“Arch” has issue in some of these not being curved archs.

4 Likes

The area occupied by the building can be large or small. It does not appear that the area occupied is a significant factor in considering whether an object is a building (roof) or not. There are also roofs that are much longer than wide.

That makes sense to me. I think that’s their function in most cases. They are something similiar to a gatehouse, but these gateways do not have walls, they are just a roof:

building=gatehouse is used to tag an entry control point building, spanning over a highway that enters a city or compound.

Many/some have no roof at all (can’t hide from the rain there); many/some are not touristic, many/some are not historical; many/some are not artwork or even decorative. Many/some are not curved; many/some are structures but not buildings. Many/some give access to areas; many/some give access to important highways. Many/some have some kind of function; many/some are just elaborate name signs.

I would stick with man_made=portal. I think that covers all variants.

Want to be more specific?
man_made=portal & portal=

And/Or add decorative=yes, artwork=yes, building=yes, inscription=, name=

I would like to clarify one thing by taking advantage of your comment. Some contributors sometimes misunderstand my tagging suggestions because I certainly don’t explain the limited scope from which I am suggesting.

When someone asks for a tagging suggestion, I always try to suggest an approved tag or one with a widely accepted usage by the community. I don’t usually suggest new tags, which does not mean that they cannot be used.

If an object needs a new tag, go ahead. If someone makes a formal proposal, I will consider it.

1 Like

:+1: Same with me, as long as there is a tag suiting the issue.

Why do you think so? Because these structures are not as decorative as #3 oer #4? You have to be aware that artwork in public places not necessarily looks like art in common sense or is really decorative, as you can see at these examples:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/FFM-Bergen_Hohe_Strasse_Skulptur_2.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Chillida_monumento_vor_thyssen_düsseldorf.jpg

and there are lots more. I still consider any object set up in public places by a governmental office or agency which does not serve any practical purpose to be understood as artwork, even if it may look like some scrap forgotten by error to one or the other visitor.

Nevertheless I would not have a problem with a tag like man_made=portal although #3 does not look like a portal to me, more like a tower folded down by stomach pain … :wink: … isn’t that artwork?

1 Like

I think that’s also the tagging I would use. (arc/gate/entrance/portal/whatever) We don’t have these gates over here, though.

I too think that #1 and #2 are not artworks. I agree, however, that artworks are not always merely decorative or aesthetically “pretty” objects, so to speak.

I am photographically documenting memorials and public artworks in my city to add them to the map. Some of these objects have given me a lot of thought about the limits of a memorial or an public artwork. This would get off topic for this thread, although it is an interesting topic too. When I finish documenting all the memorials and public artworks in my city (if I ever finish), I would like to put my thoughts in order and write something about it.

1 Like

hi. Thanks to @Kovoschiz for cross linking!

which sounds like suggesting man_made=gateway.

If there is nothing to be closed or opened, is it still a gateway?

All of your comments have been very helpful and appreciated.
I think most of them make sense, and that makes the problem I’ve been struggling with even bigger.
I think there will always be issues like this because of the inconsistency of OSM tags.
I’ll try to organize my thoughts and post them again, but you guys are welcome to continue the discussion.
I’ll link to it below this post when I get it organized and posted.
Thanks, everyone.

1 Like

I deeply agree with your thoughts.
I wonder if it’s because OSM tags were created or are being used based on abstract and subjective criteria.

You have best summarized the point of my concern.

I wanted a tag that would allow me to specify a structure that acts as a ‘gateway’, and I also had in mind a key value of ‘gateway’ if needed, but the word ‘gateway’ is pretty abstract.

I wrote the following article while worrying about what could be the cause of this problem.
:point_right: Isn’t the OSM tagging scheme is too difficult?

I’d like to hear other people’s opinions.

If we say so, yes. In my interpretation, too. If we stick to literal dictionary meaning then we’re having a problem. Let’s define the OSM meaning in the wiki.

1 Like

I would treat any purely decorative gate like structure as “portal” or man_made=portal.

=portal is too vague. It looks applicable to tunnel portal structures.
tourism= doesn’t have to be “touristic” due to the extensive use. Here there is a more emphasis on its functionality of symbolizing transition. man_made= is better left for structures, and you could use existing =torii etc (others can figure out if it is needed to group these arch-like structures later) or building=roof (when it is a roof) together with this feature for compatibility.
The structures are not always a transitional chokepoint. Eg a torii can be placed far away, or in waters outside (eg Miyajima is still more recognizable at the mouth of the bay directly facing the shrine; but Oarai has one out in the sea separated by a road and other buildings on the shoreline, and has its own torii on the inland side of the road at the stairs). It may be debated whether walkways lined with torii (as in Fushimi Inari Taisha) fits the definition. The functionality is more ascertained when it is a shrine gate, location border, or other access point and corridors.

1 Like