Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

2020-09-24 Thread Paul Allen
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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

2020-09-24 Thread Michael Patrick
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] Large fire perimeter tagging?

2020-09-24 Thread stevea
I very much appreciate your reply, Rob; thanks.
SteveA

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?

2020-09-24 Thread Rob Savoye
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?

2020-09-24 Thread stevea
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?

2020-09-24 Thread stevea
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?

2020-09-24 Thread Clifford Snow
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.
> >
> > 

Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?

2020-09-24 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
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?

2020-09-24 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
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, 

Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?

2020-09-24 Thread stevea
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 

[Tagging] relation proposals

2020-09-24 Thread Richard Welty
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

2020-09-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

2020-09-24 Thread Clifford Snow
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)

2020-09-24 Thread Paul Allen
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)

2020-09-24 Thread Janko Mihelić
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