Thank you for both comments, and nice to see that the AlaskaDave is here. I sure appreciate all the efforts that you are putting in, few people seem to work on Thailand.
Indeed, the original data should be correct, and not necessarily the rendering. Still, I can only think “arggh” when I see the Antenna… ;).
While I’m a newcomer here, I have been working with classification and standardization issues in my work, so I’m familiar with the issues and the difficulty of bringing everybody’s wishes under one hat.
So, I would like to present some arguments, why I think the “tower” designation is not that great for stupas, or chedis as many should be labelled in Thailand.
Stupas are originally burial mounds - from wiki “mound-like or semi-hemispherical structure containing Buddhist relics, typically the ashes of Buddhist monks”. In fact, many of these are more similar in shape to burial mounds/pyramids in china or round pyramids in Latin America. Given their variety, many would not be considered “towers”. Thus, this would create an inconsistency in labeling stupas/chedis i.e. some are towers, some not.
Ideally, a separate tag for stupa, instead of tower, would be nice.
In it’s absence, perhaps a generic “monument” with subset “stupa” would work. monument could then also have subsets like, pyramid, etc. etc.
So, is there currently an alternative for labeling stupas (not as towers)?
BTW, the “ruin” tag I used is also not 100% satisfactory, since effectively it’s just a condition of any building. Essentially, any building/monument could have the condition tag “ruined” attached, i.e. in Wiang Kum Kam, they would be “Wats, ruined”. But I guess this would imply too big a revamp of tags.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Happy Holidays.