Proposal talk:Stupa

As one of the early proponents of using man_made=tower and tower:type=stupa to tag these structures, I see this proposal as a useful and well-reasoned alternative. Thank you for your work on this proposal. AlaskaDave (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Mound-shaped?

On Wikipedia, the description and images of stupas are very much non-towerlike "a mound-like or hemispherical structure containing relics (such as śarīra – typically the remains of Buddhist monks or nuns) that is used as a place of meditation". Is it that it frequently also has a spire as well that it has been referred to as a tower? Are we talking about different things? If Wikipedia is correct then I think the rationale should be more strongly "it isn't a tower at all" and play down the "it's a tower, but quite wide and short". Just my not very informed opinion Jnicho02 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is totally right. A stupa, in my view, should not be referred to as a tower at all. While every stupa, as far as I know, has a spire of varying sizes on top, this should not be the reason to tag it as a tower. In Rationale No. 1, I'm arguing against the notion that a stupa tagged as a tower is appropriate, then I used an example in Rationale No. 2 to demonstrate why a stupa should not be tagged as a tower. If the Rationale should be stronger, is it ok to add some sentence after Rationale No.2?, or should the No. 1 and 2 be merged into one statement? Nitinatsangsit (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I've already made changes to Rationale No.1 and 2 to make them more apparent. nitinatsangsit (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, Nitinatsangsit. I just want to add my voice of agreement, that stupas are not towers, and it was a mistake from the start to tag them as such. --Keithonearth (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I prefer amenity=place_of_worship + place_of_worship=stupa

I think amenity=place_of_worship + place_of_worship=stupa will be clearer --حبيشان (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether a place_of_worship is widely accepted, since they're still discussing if the whole building is suitable to use in the "Notes on usage" section of their page.

Another issue with this method of tagging is that many Buddhist temples have been tagged as amenity=place_of_worship for the entire temple grounds, almost like a convention in OSM. If every stupa in the temple is tagged in this manner, it will create a lot of place_of_worship inside a place_of_worship, which isn't a good idea. Although amenity=place_of_worship is not always used to tag the entire temple (rather, landuse=religious or anything else is used instead), a stupa is not a building or area where people can get inside to do religious things. In this case, a amenity=place_of_worship should be tagged to the area surrounding a stupa, maybe within a fence. This should more closely resemble the description "A place where religious services are conducted". -- nitinatsangsit (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are mostly talking about the stupa itself, not the rest of the campus, which most often contains a temple(s) or other religious buildings. However, that's not always the case. Many stupas are ruins, were created for other purposes, or are no longer used as places of worship. My preferred tagging for a typical Buddhist temple complex in Thailand is to mark the area inside the wall as landuse=religious, the temple structure(s) as the amenity=place_of_worship, and the stupa or stupas as man_made=stupa. AlaskaDave (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That sounds really sensible AlaskaDave. I do not think place_of_worship is the right tag حبيشان/Habishan. They are not places people go to worship the way people go to a church, mosque, or temple. They are most often road side reminders to be religious, and may also be part of a temple complex. But they are very different from other structures that use the place_of_worship tag. --Keithonearth (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Would prefer it was treated as building

I totally agree that any use of the word tower is inappropriate for a Stupa, and to some extent, man_made is a catch all tag that can often be abused. After all, almost everything is man made to one degree or another. We use the tag building=shrine, and to me, thats the precedant to follow here (even if it doesnt actually have a roof, as such). So, I think for a Stupa (and we all know what they are), create the tag, building=stupa, and use in conjuction with amenity=place_of_worship, and historic=*, religion=*, height=* (if appropriate or known). Russ McD 15:23 23 May 2021 (UTC)

But this doesn't work if building=* is considered to be something that can be entered with an enclosure and significant size enough for a human, unlike even building=storage_tank, building=digester, and building=slurry_tank being used by some. Following the logic of building=water_tower and building=transformer_tower, a man_made=* can get building=* if it's also a "building". In Proposed_features/stupa#Examples, half of the bigger ones on the left would qualify, half of those smaller ones mostly on the right won't. Eg following your practice, it can be building=shrine + man_made=stupa? ---- Kovposch (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree Kovposch, `building=*` tags should be used for structures that can be entered by people. A solid mound is by no means a building. --Keithonearth (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

According to wiki pages, a building=* tag appears to be used to define a main function of the building that was created for (and not the current use, if different). A stupa, in my perspective, is more concerned with the structure's form and characteristics. If the man_made=* tag is used to describe the structure's distinctive characteristics and the building=* tag is used to describe the function of the structure that people may enter and use, both tags can be applied to the same object. If the structure is stupa-shaped, it should be tagged with man_made=stupa; if it provides spaces for religious rites, it should also be tagged with building=temple, shrine, or other appropriate tags. -- nitinatsangsit (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Japanese stupas

I agree with this proposal as there are many stupas in Japanese Buddhist temples as well. However, there are many layered towers (e.g., three- or five-storey towers) in Japan in addition to the dome-shaped structure. I think these will be tagged as man_made=stupa. Try searching for "tahoto", "sanjunoto", "gojunoto" on Wikimedia commons. These are pictures of Japanese stupa. --Tokada (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Is "pagoda" the same as "stupa"? At least tower:type=pagoda is used separately from tower:type=stupa, for stacked layers. ---- Kovposch (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A Japanese tō, as well as a Chinese ta and its equivalent in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere, are currently defined differently from stupa in OSM, as Kovposch said. Wikipedia also distinguishes between a pagoda and a stupa, despite the fact that the use of the terms pagoda and stupa is occasionally inconsistent. Although the form and idea of an East Asian Pagoda are derived from a South Asian Stupa, and they are sometimes classified as one sort of stupa, it is preferable to distinguish them on the map. Because a pagoda is a multi-story structure with a height greater than its width, tagging it with man_made=tower isn't as problematic as it is for a stupa. By the way, since a man_made=water_tower, man_made=communications_tower, and so on have been distinguished from a man_made=tower, a man_made=pagoda might be created, in my view. -- nitinatsangsit (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The difference between stupa and pagoda was uncertain to me. By definition a pagoda is a multiple-storey tower, many towers in Japanese temples are pagoda. -- Tokada (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Pagodas originate from stupas, and share a similar (the same?) symbolic function, but are *very* different architecturally, and visually. I think it makes sense to tag them differently. Keithonearth (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)