Proposal talk:Votive sites and type of votive offering

Generic form

Resolved: Changed the tags in the proposal in accordance with this feedback, and documented the changes at the bottom of the proposal. ——LikhtarStar (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why amenity=votive_site is a "site". votive_site=* makes me think it's about the structures, ie box, table, rack. Or it conveys a scale larger than them with noticeable grounds. This causes confusion in votive_site=sculpture and votive_site=cross as if they are where to offer. Your title and wiki naming as amenity=votive_offering is fine.
—— Kovposch (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point. amenity=votive_site was originally chosen because it was intended to emulate amenity=give_box where the designated service provided at the designated location is the value to amenity=*. However, I can see why mappers might indeed be confused, especially with the examples you gave. I have replaced amenity=votive_site with amenity=votive_offering and votive_site=* with votive_offering=* respectively.
—— LikhtarStar (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Double feature

Recommending amenity=place_of_worship;votive_site is not agreed on. You should use amenity=place_of_worship + place_of_worship=votive_* now. For place_of_worship=sacred_tree and place_of_worship=holy_well , they can simply have votive_*=cloth and votive_*=money added.
—— Kovposch (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand that the purpose of the new tag you recommended place_of_worship=votive_offering is to accommodate cases like Hill of Crosses where the votive site is itself the place of worship and there is no existing place_of_worship=* tag. However, as you've stated in the case of place_of_worship=sacred_tree or place_of_worship=holy_well where there's already an existing place_of_worship=*, it is possible to just use votive_offering=* as a standalone tag, without the requirement for either amenity=votive_offering or place_of_worship=votive_offering to be used.

How about simply expanding this use-case to the previous one, so we don't have to create a new tag? I.e. in each of the 3 cases below, there won't be a conflict of dual-tagging:

• Case 1: standard textbook case of the votive site being a small node/area within a much larger place of worship. The relevant tags included will be amenity=votive_offering and votive_offering=*.
• Case 2: the Hill of Crosses case where the votive site is itself the place of worship and there is no existing place_of_worship=* tag. The relevant tag included will be votive_offering=*.
• Case 3: the sacred tree / holy well case where the votive site is itself the place of worship and there is already an existing tag place_of_worship=sacred_tree or place_of_worship=holy_well. The relevant tag included will be votive_offering=*.

What do you think about this? It solves the dual-tagging issue and we don't have to separate amenity=votive_offering and place_of_worship=votive_offering.
—— LikhtarStar (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Would be fine for Hill of Crosses to not be proposed with any place_of_worship=*
Curiously it doesn't have have amenity=place_of_worship 124797814 124797814
Maybe complicated by building=chapel 350368221 350368221
—— Kovposch (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

For Hill of Crosses, a mapper from two years ago added a node 4351042957 4351042957 with amenity=place_of_worship, atop the area 124797814 124797814 with tourism=attraction. They both appear to be describing the same POI (same name in Estonian and English). Perhaps they should be merged... in which case, the Hill of Crosses would belong to Case 3 as described above

Oops, sorry. The node above belongs to a POI in Estonia that unfortunately shares the same name as the more popular POI in Lithuania. Yeah, I'll leave the Hill of Crosses in the proposal as an example for votive_offering=cross but remove the part calling it a place of worship. Personally, I think it qualifies as a place of worship because it's a pilgrimage site. However, since it's not tagged as such on OSM, it's better to be safe than sorry... ——LikhtarStar (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about that, It could simply be added with amenity=votive_offering if not amenity=place_of_worship (good argument to propose it)
—— Kovposch (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Religions required

I noticed you mentioned place_of_worship=holy_well together with wishing wells. Not all wishing wells, fountains, etc are sacred. What should be used for those? Seems this can be placeholder amenity=offering_for_wish / offering_for_worship=* + religion=* to distinguish from other religion=none ones. Cf love_locks=* mass-added a dozen, grown by 2 dozens.
—— Kovposch (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the table under the "Pages Affected" section. Indeed, wishing wells are not necessarily holy wells (and vice versa) but there might be cases where they overlap, e.g. when it is customary for visitors to throw coins into the holy well. I included wishing wells as an example of a votive offering because Votive offering writes "similar acts continue into the present day—for example, in traditional Catholic culture and, arguably, in the modern-day practice of tossing coins into a wishing well or fountain".

As I understand it, wishing wells could arguably be considered votive offerings because the intention behind making a wish to some greater power/the winds of fate and giving an offering (coins) in return could be considered votive. Even the wishing wells which are not overtly religious could be considered votive simply because of the purpose that people use them for. This is perhaps a grey area where some mappers might not recognise such wishing wells as votive at all, while others map all of them as votive. It also resembles the discussion page for the holy well proposal. Under the "Holy but no worship" section, mappers there discussed if place_of_worship=holy_well was suitable, considering some holy wells have never "appear(ed) to have ever been places of organized worship as such, merely sources of water that supposedly have special powers".

When you mentioned the placeholder, do you mean that it might be better if amenity=votive_offering is replaced entirely with amenity=offering_for_wish / offering_for_worship and religion=* completely in the proposal, or just for the case of wishing wells? If it's the former (for the entire proposal), then how do mappers differentiate between offerings for wishes and offerings for worship at say, a temple where votive offerings are made with both purposes? If it's the latter (just for wishing wells), then it leads back to the aforementioned discussion [1] where they eventually voted to continue tagging the non-worship-but-considered-imbued-with-some-special-power wells as place_of_worship=holy_well, despite such wells not being affiliated with any worship behaviour.

At this juncture, I am inclined to remove wishing wells from the amended proposal because, as explained earlier, some people consider non-religious wishing wells as votive (its purpose of allowing visitors to wish towards a higher power/winds of fate) just like how some people [2] consider non-worship holy wells to be places of worship ... while others disagree. What do you think about this?
—— LikhtarStar (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

If they may be considered votive, it's fine, or they can be left out. But also I wondered about other wish offerings, eg love, and peace. Perhaps most prominently, you can give folded paper cranes in Hiroshima.
—— Kovposch (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it all boils down to the basic question - are all non-religious offerings considered votive? As you've mentioned, the Hiroshima paper cranes, wishes that have to do with hoping for a good outcome in general, and the original case of the wishing well.

According to the dictionary definition for "votive", it means "consisting of or expressing a vow, wish, or desire" or "offered or performed in fulfillment of a vow or in gratitude or devotion". Surprisingly, no mention of the religious aspect at all, unlike Wikipedia.

I suppose it could be left to the discretion of the mapper and community. Currently, I'm thinking of including these examples (including the Hiroshima paper cranes) inside the proposal. And then add a clarification below - "if a mapper has any doubts on whether a specific non-religious site for offerings should be considered votive, please discuss on the OSM wiki page votive_offering=* or the community forums". What do you think?
——LikhtarStar (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You can ask on the forum post first. That's great to me.
—— Kovposch (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)