Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 22:16 Peter Elderson wrote: > I have heard mourning chapel, mourning room, funeral chapel, funeral room. > Chapel of rest does not seem right to me, though I understand how the > funeral business would like that term better. > > But I'm not a native speaker. PCMIIW. > I tried to google images of all these terms. They all find the right thing, although IMHO images of chapel of rest and mourning room are most concentrated and on the target. But I'm also not a native speaker. Janko > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 08:13, Janko Mihelić wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 22:16 Peter Elderson wrote: > >> I have heard mourning chapel, mourning room, funeral chapel, funeral >> room. Chapel of rest does not seem right to me, though I understand how the >> funeral business would like that term better. >> >> But I'm not a native speaker. PCMIIW. >> > > I tried to google images of all these terms. They all find the right > thing, although IMHO images of chapel of rest and mourning room are most > concentrated and on the target. > > But I'm also not a native speaker. > I am a native speaker but don't have any recent experience of attending a funeral. However, the term currently preferred by funeral directors is "chapel of rest." See https://www.funeralguide.co.uk/help-resources/arranging-a-funeral/what-is-a-chapel-of-rest That preference might change in the future, just as funeral directors is a modern term for what used to be known as undertakers, but that is a risk we have to live with. It is currently a term or art and the way most funeral directors in the UK describe their "Have a look at the corpse" room. It is therefore the term most likely to be recognised by native speakers. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:42 AM Paul Allen wrote: > I am a native speaker but don't have any recent experience of attending > a funeral. However, the term currently preferred by funeral directors is > "chapel of rest." See > > https://www.funeralguide.co.uk/help-resources/arranging-a-funeral/what-is-a-chapel-of-rest > > That preference might change in the future, just as funeral directors is > a modern term for what used to be known as undertakers, but that is a > risk we have to live with. It is currently a term or art and the way most > funeral directors in the UK describe their "Have a look at the corpse" > room. > It is therefore the term most likely to be recognised by native speakers. > I just happened to be talking to a funeral owner yesterday. To be clear he is located in the US. I asked him the question - what do they call themselves. He said funeral home or some might use the term mortuary. He felt that mortuary is a more dated home. He did not offer up "chapel of rest." "Chapel of Rest" sounds to me more like a marketing term not something we should be using in OSM. Best, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)
sent from a phone > On 24. Sep 2020, at 16:40, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I just happened to be talking to a funeral owner yesterday. To be clear he is > located in the US then it is not so relevant for our discussion, because the standard is British English. Maybe it could make sense to provide an English(US) translation for editor presets and the like? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] relation proposals
it's not obvious from reading the wiki where proposals for relations or modifications to existing relations should go. the long stalled proposal for circuits (race courses) is supposedly in the wrong place, but i have no idea what the right place is. i don't plan to try to revive that proposal, but rather i am about to write a proposal for a new subtype of route to serve the same purpose. i'd like to know the right place to put it. thanks, richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?
I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find surprising, especially as there are currently even larger fires that are more widespread all across the Western United States. I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags I'm not familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to the map (as "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a 'zoning' sense, as many of the actual trees that MAKE these forests have sadly burned down, or substantially so). Considering that there are literally millions and millions of acres of (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland, residential, commercial, industrial, public, private...), I'm surprised that OSM doesn't have some well-pondered and actual tags that reflect this situation. My initial tagging of this (simply tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" was coined on my part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo queries for similar data in the map, I come up empty. First, do others think it is important that we map these? I say yes, as this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here, both present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this fire alone) will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the map (somehow, better bolstered than a simple, though huge, polygon tagged with fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically misses something." I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated myself. So, considering the thousands of structures that burned (most of them homes), tens of thousands of acres which are burn-scarred and distinctly different than their landcover, millions of trees (yes, really) and even landuse is now currently tagged, I look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of fire=perimeter on a large polygon. Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and results (they are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how might we choose to do that? Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred? (I'm making that up, but it or something like it could work). How and when might we replace these with something less severe? On the other hand, if it isn't appropriate that we map any of this, please say so. Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors who have worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters, SteveA California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively safe now that this fire is 100% contained) On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea wrote: > Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home list" for > me. > > I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources, > http://www.osm.org/way/842280873 . This is a huge fire (sadly, there are > larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and caused the evacuation > of every third person in my county (yes). There are hundreds, perhaps > thousands of structures, mostly residential homes, which have burned down and > the event has "completely changed" giant redwoods in and the character of > California's oldest state park (Big Basin). > > This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human patterns of > movement and activity in this part of the world for a significant time to > come. It is a "major disaster." I'm curious how HOT teams might delineate > such a thing (and I've participated in a HOT fire team, mapping barns, water > sources for helicopter dips and other human structures during a large fire > near me), I've simply made a polygon tagged fire=perimeter, a name=* tag and > a start_date. I don't expect rendering, it's meant to be an "up to right > about here" (inside the polygon is/was a burning fire, outside was no fire). > I wouldn't say it is more accurate than 20 to 50 meters on any edge, an > "across a wide street" distance to be "off" is OK with me, considering this > fire's size, but if a slight skew jiggles the whole thing into place better, > feel free to nudge. It's the tagging I'm interested in getting right, and > perhaps wondering if or even that people enter gigantic fires that will > significantly change landscape for some time into OSM, as I have done. This > will affect my local mapping, as a great much has burned. Even after > starting almost two weeks ago, as of 20 minutes ago this fire is 33% > contained, with good, steady progress. These men and women are heroes. > > To me, this is a significant polygon in my local mapping: it is a "huge > thing" that is a major feature on a map, especially right now. I firmly > believe it belongs in OSM for many reasons and want it tagged "correctly." > Yes, there are other maps that show this, I believe OSM should have these > data, too, as this perimeter will affect much (in the real world) and much
Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?
Most large wildfires do not burn the canopy (the tallest trees) in forests with trees over 10 meters in height. The perimeter of the wildfire, shown commonly on public maps, does not determine which areas have been burned. Often there are large areas of vegetation along canyon bottoms and streambeds which are unburned, within the perimeter. You will need new aerial imagery or detailed on-the-ground survey to determine the surviving areas of vegetation. I would not recommend attempting to map the current official perimeter of the fire, since this changes on a daily or hourly basis: it is a temporary event which is not really verifiable from the standpoint of an OpenStreetMap volunteer mapper. Database users who need these perimeters should download the latest version from the official sources. - Joseph Eisenberg On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:32 PM stevea wrote: > I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find surprising, > especially as there are currently even larger fires that are more > widespread all across the Western United States. > > I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags I'm not > familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to the map (as > "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a 'zoning' sense, as > many of the actual trees that MAKE these forests have sadly burned down, or > substantially so). > > Considering that there are literally millions and millions of acres of > (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland, residential, commercial, > industrial, public, private...), I'm surprised that OSM doesn't have some > well-pondered and actual tags that reflect this situation. My initial > tagging of this (simply tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" > was coined on my part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo > queries for similar data in the map, I come up empty. > > First, do others think it is important that we map these? I say yes, as > this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here, > both present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this > fire alone) will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the > map (somehow, better bolstered than a simple, though huge, polygon tagged > with fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically > misses something." I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and > aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated myself. So, > considering the thousands of structures that burned (most of them homes), > tens of thousands of acres which are burn-scarred and distinctly different > than their landcover, millions of trees (yes, really) and even landuse is > now currently tagged, I look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of > fire=perimeter on a large polygon. > > Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and results (they > are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how might we choose to do > that? Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest or > natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred? (I'm making that > up, but it or something like it could work). How and when might we replace > these with something less severe? On the other hand, if it isn't > appropriate that we map any of this, please say so. > > Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors who have > worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters, > > SteveA > California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively safe now > that this fire is 100% contained) > > > On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea wrote: > > Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home list" > for me. > > > > I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources, > http://www.osm.org/way/842280873 . This is a huge fire (sadly, there are > larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and caused the > evacuation of every third person in my county (yes). There are hundreds, > perhaps thousands of structures, mostly residential homes, which have > burned down and the event has "completely changed" giant redwoods in and > the character of California's oldest state park (Big Basin). > > > > This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human > patterns of movement and activity in this part of the world for a > significant time to come. It is a "major disaster." I'm curious how HOT > teams might delineate such a thing (and I've participated in a HOT fire > team, mapping barns, water sources for helicopter dips and other human > structures during a large fire near me), I've simply made a polygon tagged > fire=perimeter, a name=* tag and a start_date. I don't expect rendering, > it's meant to be an "up to right about here" (inside the polygon is/was a > burning fire, outside was no fire). I wouldn't say it is more accurate > than 20 to 50 meters on any edge, an "across a wide street" distance to be > "off" is OK with me, conside
Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?
We discussed this back in January at the height of the Australian fires https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2020-January/013527.html Consensus was that damaged areas shouldn't be mapped in OSM as they are only temporary, no matter how bad they look *now* :-( Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?
Steve, Just a reminder, landuse is to tag what the land is used for. landuse=forest is for areas that have harvestable wood products, ie trees. Just because there was a fire doesn't mean the landuse changes. Landcover is a better tag for burnt areas as well as areas just clearcut. On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM stevea wrote: > I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find surprising, > especially as there are currently even larger fires that are more > widespread all across the Western United States. > > I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags I'm not > familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to the map (as > "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a 'zoning' sense, as > many of the actual trees that MAKE these forests have sadly burned down, or > substantially so). > > Considering that there are literally millions and millions of acres of > (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland, residential, commercial, > industrial, public, private...), I'm surprised that OSM doesn't have some > well-pondered and actual tags that reflect this situation. My initial > tagging of this (simply tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" > was coined on my part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo > queries for similar data in the map, I come up empty. > > First, do others think it is important that we map these? I say yes, as > this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here, > both present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this > fire alone) will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the > map (somehow, better bolstered than a simple, though huge, polygon tagged > with fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically > misses something." I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and > aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated myself. So, > considering the thousands of structures that burned (most of them homes), > tens of thousands of acres which are burn-scarred and distinctly different > than their landcover, millions of trees (yes, really) and even landuse is > now currently tagged, I look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of > fire=perimeter on a large polygon. > > Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and results (they > are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how might we choose to do > that? Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest or > natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred? (I'm making that > up, but it or something like it could work). How and when might we replace > these with something less severe? On the other hand, if it isn't > appropriate that we map any of this, please say so. > > Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors who have > worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters, > > SteveA > California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively safe now > that this fire is 100% contained) > > > On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea wrote: > > Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home list" > for me. > > > > I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources, > http://www.osm.org/way/842280873 . This is a huge fire (sadly, there are > larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and caused the > evacuation of every third person in my county (yes). There are hundreds, > perhaps thousands of structures, mostly residential homes, which have > burned down and the event has "completely changed" giant redwoods in and > the character of California's oldest state park (Big Basin). > > > > This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human > patterns of movement and activity in this part of the world for a > significant time to come. It is a "major disaster." I'm curious how HOT > teams might delineate such a thing (and I've participated in a HOT fire > team, mapping barns, water sources for helicopter dips and other human > structures during a large fire near me), I've simply made a polygon tagged > fire=perimeter, a name=* tag and a start_date. I don't expect rendering, > it's meant to be an "up to right about here" (inside the polygon is/was a > burning fire, outside was no fire). I wouldn't say it is more accurate > than 20 to 50 meters on any edge, an "across a wide street" distance to be > "off" is OK with me, considering this fire's size, but if a slight skew > jiggles the whole thing into place better, feel free to nudge. It's the > tagging I'm interested in getting right, and perhaps wondering if or even > that people enter gigantic fires that will significantly change landscape > for some time into OSM, as I have done. This will affect my local mapping, > as a great much has burned. Even after starting almost two weeks ago, as > of 20 minutes ago this fire is 33% contained, with good, steady progress. > These men and women are heroes. > > > > T
Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sep 24, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Most large wildfires do not burn the canopy (the tallest trees) in forests > with trees over 10 meters in height. Noted, thank you. > The perimeter of the wildfire, shown commonly on public maps, does not > determine which areas have been burned. Often there are large areas of > vegetation along canyon bottoms and streambeds which are unburned, within the > perimeter. Something I already DID know, also noted, thank you. > You will need new aerial imagery or detailed on-the-ground survey to > determine the surviving areas of vegetation. Something I have anticipated (apparently correctly), yet which isn't available now (though I assume will be, in the regular course of imagery being updated), so also noted, thank you. > I would not recommend attempting to map the current official perimeter of the > fire, since this changes on a daily or hourly basis: it is a temporary event > which is not really verifiable from the standpoint of an OpenStreetMap > volunteer mapper. It isn't anticipated, it was completed about a month ago, containing only two versions, creation with start_date and one a couple days ago to add the end_date tag. It is a lightweight data structure: one polygon with three tags. I don't intend to delete it, as it marks a distinct boundary in the real world regarding real world components (like landuse and land cover) that OSM already maps — indeed which OSM already 100% maps in the area noted —yet these (existing landuse and land cover) polygons may have their nature / character quite substantially altered from the fire. The event WAS temporary (and determinable from start_date and end_date keys), the aftermath will indisputably last years, perhaps decades. OSM will be mapping in the area during the meantime. > Database users who need these perimeters should download the latest version > from the official sources. Yes, AND OSM users who map in areas affected by the fire want (likely need) fire perimeter data to delineate where substantial "re-mapping" almost certainly must take place. Thank you for your quick reply! SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sep 24, 2020, at 3:05 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > Just a reminder, landuse is to tag what the land is used for. landuse=forest > is for areas that have harvestable wood products, ie trees. Just because > there was a fire doesn't mean the landuse changes. Landcover is a better tag > for burnt areas as well as areas just clearcut. Thank you, Clifford. It wasn't my intention to change any landuse tags, though I was in listening mode in case that might be suggested — for example, in the case of entire rural neighborhoods which might have zero or few houses remaining because they all or largely burned down and so are no longer residential. However I do anticipate there being land COVER tag changes, and substantially. Here (there are at least a half-dozen recommended ways to tag these in our wiki), we tag landuse=forest on areas which are both dedicated to "forestry" or "timber production" and have valid logging permits and we tag natural=wood on areas which are substantially or exclusively tree-covered, but about which "timber production" it is either unknown or known to not be allowed. (It's a relatively rough distinction, but works fairly well here). I anticipate that landuse=forest will either change not at all or in very minor cases where forestry production ends up being "forfeited" as that particular productive use of the land. (That would take zoning changes, timber permit revocations or surrender, lots of public meetings, etc. and therefore many years, at least around here). I anticipate that natural=wood, natural=scrub and similar tags will substantially change, and as Joseph just suggested, is well-established by "fresh" imagery where the extent of this should likely be apparent. The boundary=tagged fire=perimeter remains useful in the meantime (years) to delineate the extent of any necessary land cover mapping OSM would likely require. Thanks for answers so far! I'll go back to the January Australian fire threads people are pointing me to and take a look at any other specifics I might glean. I do respect that there are some who say "don't map these at all," but I do find the perimeter useful to describe the extent of what is a substantial change to land cover (and in some cases, such as fully abandoned homes and residential areas where re-population / re-building will NOT take place, landuse as well). It's wonderful to be able to ask and receive answers here (thank you), SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On 9/24/20 4:07 PM, stevea wrote: > On Sep 24, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: >> Most large wildfires do not burn the canopy (the tallest trees) in forests >> with trees over 10 meters in height. I'd disagree, and I'm probably the only one on this list who works active wildland fires. We call these "crown fires", and the fire jumps from tree top to tree top. The fire I was recently deployed to burned *everything*, and I have pictures... >> The perimeter of the wildfire, shown commonly on public maps, does not >> determine which areas have been burned. Often there are large areas of >> vegetation along canyon bottoms and streambeds which are unburned, within >> the perimeter. > > Something I already DID know, also noted, thank you. Yes, the "burned area" is patchy. Lots of green parts, as well as spot fires far from the main perimeter. >> Database users who need these perimeters should download the latest version >> from the official sources. > > Yes, AND OSM users who map in areas affected by the fire want (likely need) > fire perimeter data to delineate where substantial "re-mapping" almost > certainly must take place. You can get the official real-time data for fire perimeters in the US from here: https://data-nifc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/wildfire-perimeters I have to add these manually and generate my own PBF file for OsmAnd, but it works. I do agree the perimeter is probably not worth uploading to OSM, so I don't worry about the tagging. - rob - -- Senior Tech Lead Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team https://www.hotosm.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?
I very much appreciate your reply, Rob; thanks. SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)
One could always refer to the industry codes and subcodes that define
product or service, for whatever jurisdiction. Along with industry trade
publications - 'Chapel of Rest' seems to be a dated UK specific term (
similar to the US term 'undertaker') , whereas viewing / visitation would
be perfectly understood in the UK and pretty much translate to other
languages as well.
The euphemistic 'Chapel of Rest' is more generically known as 'Viewing /
Visitation Service', most commonly a room(s) where folks can pay their
respects outside the ceremony itself,minimally with a guest registry,
sometimes with scheduled hours, etc.
The 'Viewing Service' ( similar to other services, like the florists ) can
range from none, once it was basically a small rooms the size of a large
closet off a hallway, all the way up to full catered banquet facility for
some cultures ( I once went to one in Detroit, where the open casket and
reception line was right there with tables of people eating brunch
('wake')).
Michael Patrick
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 23:51, Michael Patrick wrote: > > The euphemistic 'Chapel of Rest' is more generically known as 'Viewing / > Visitation Service', most commonly a room(s) where folks can pay their > respects outside the ceremony itself,minimally with a guest registry, > sometimes with scheduled hours, etc. > Problem 1. "Viewing Service" is the name of a process, not the name of the building or room it takes place in. "Turn left after the Viewing Service" makes no sense, any more than "Turn right after the prayer" as an alternative to "Turn right after the church." Problem 2. "Viewing service" implies some sort of formalized event, probably religious with a speaker delivering a eulogy. A Chapel of Rest is for looking at a dead body, with no formal ceremony. Possibly in complete silence. Possible with only one live person in the room. Contrast this with a religious service, which has prayers, hymns, a sermon, bouts of kneeling, etc. Problem 3. I've not encountered that term as a synonym for a chapel of rest. But I've not looked very hard. Citation needed. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
