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

[Michael Patrick]

> > Not pertinent.  The general policy is tags use British English.


Tom McArthur in the *Oxford Guide to World English*, British English shares
"all the ambiguities and tensions in the word 'British' and as a result can
be used and interpreted in two ways, more broadly or more narrowly, within
a range of blurring and ambiguity"
...  Leeds University stated:... that they were "very pleased"—and indeed,
"well chuffed"—at receiving their generous grant. He could, of course, have
been "bostin" if he had come from the Black Country, or if he was a Scouser
he would have been well "made up" over so many spondoolicks, because as a
Geordie might say, £460,000 is a "canny load of chink"

Perhaps you mean one of the many versions of 'Standard' English:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English ?

Despite the large difference in area and population, there is far more
variation between UK Englishes than within the USA ( and probably Canada
also ).

> There is no requirement that they survive round trips through google
> translate.
>

Nor is there any requirement to use any number of linguistic tools to
determine
prevalence and alignment of meanings, but since OSM is an international
project,
my practice is to make it as easy as possible for non-native English users.




> >
> > --
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > --
> > [1]
> >
> https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0301-funeral-costs-and-pricing-checklist
> > [2]
> > https://funeralresources.com/resources/viewing-and-visitation-costs/
> > [3] https://funerals.org/?consumers=read-funeral-home-price-list/
> > [4] https://www.thefuneralsite.com/ResourceCenters/Costs/How_much.html
> > [5]
> >
> https://www.floridafuneralhome.com/Content/Media/FloridaFuneralHomeAndCrematory/Spa%20-%20Crem%20w%20View%202018-07-01.pdf
> > [6] https://www.colinphillipsfunerals.com/our-services/private-chapel/
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:38:21 -0700
> From: Clifford Snow 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Cc: Mateusz Konieczny , talk-us
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
> Message-ID:
>  e47whe04...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:24 AM Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> >> landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is
> used
> >>
> >
> > I don't believe everyone around here will agree with that interpretation.
> > I live in an area with significant logging. Typically I will see logging
> > trucks bringing in just cut timber to be milled  when I'm out for just a
> > short drive. Timber production is a big industry in Alaska, British
> > Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.
> >
>
> I did a check of Washington and saw that there are a number of
> landuse=forest that should be natural=trees. I suspect that it's also
> happening elsewhere.
>
> >
> >> It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data
> >> consumers.
> >>
> >
> > That may be for cartographic interpretation. But researchers may have a
> > different opinion. A researcher just interested in potential wildfire
> areas
> > may not be interested in the difference, but someone looking at how much
> > land is being used for forestry products may have a different opinion. Or
> > in mountainous states where clear cutting often causes landslides. I know
> > our state studies where it's dangerous to clear cut because the area is
> so
> > steep.
> >
> > The wiki on landuse=forest does need some help. We shouldn't be offering
> a
> > tag with such unclear use cases as landuse=forest currently is written.
> >
>
> I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to
> indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production.  Thoughts?
>
> >
> >
> > --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200927/238996fb/attachment-0001.htm
> &

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 3:30 PM Yves  wrote:

>
>
> Le 27 septembre 2020 21:43:31 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson <
> pelder...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> >The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for
> >managed forests has too little practical support.
>
> Yet, this is one of the first thing I learn in my early days in OSM.
> Yves
>
> Same here.

I don't have a problem with landuse=forestry if that would satisfy the
concern that landuse=forest is too widely used. That still leaves the
problem of the following tags.
landuse=forest 4.7M uses according to taginfo
landuse=logging 58K
natural=wood 6.6M uses

Landuse=logging might be a better tag than landuse=forestry. It has had
a wiki [1] page since 2018.

I would recommend using landuse=logging since it is established and
depreciating landuse=forest. natural=wood should be used for wooded areas
with no commercial logging activity.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dlogging

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] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Yves]

Le 27 septembre 2020 21:43:31 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson  a 
écrit :

>The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for
>managed forests has too little practical support.

Yet, this is one of the first thing I learn in my early days in OSM.
Yves 

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

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Sep 2020, at 13:45, Pieter Vander Vennet  wrote:
> This width was tagged with 'width:carriageway'. 
> 


I think this is a good tagging decision, being explicit about which width you 
have measured seems the way to avoid ambiguity. (and it still leaves room for 
the next project which could measure sidewalk widths ;-) ).

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[stevea]

On Sep 27, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> Clifford Snow :
> I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to 
> indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production.  Thoughts?
> 
> I am sure there would not. landuse=forest just means the area has trees. I 
> think there is some consensus about that. 
> natural=forest: same.
> The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for 
> managed forests has too little practical support.

Peter offers this with no evidence, so I question its validity.  Furthermore, I 
offer that something like Approach 3 or Approach 1 (from our 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Forest) has been used by me in North America since 
2009 (and I am not the only one; I collaborate with other OSM Contributors on 
"good use of OSM tagging in wooded areas" in areas I map so we avoid conflict 
and harmonize on our use of tags).  So, "too little practical support" simply 
isn't true:  I and my mapping activities (along with others) simply contradict 
this assertion.  We have been contradicting this assertion for many, many years.

> Since there is no consensus about other aspects than "there are trees", data 
> users and renderers will stick to this.

Here, Peter predicts the future after reaching the false conclusion that "there 
is no consensus about other aspects."  There is slow, emerging consensus that 
landuse=forest, natural=wood, landcover=trees, key managed=* with values yes or 
no... most certainly need much work, but "what exactly OSM should or will do" 
is a long way from having consensus established.  We have absolutely no 
predictability about what data users and renderers will "stick to," let's not 
kid ourselves.

I repeat myself, but what can be said is that trees, woods, forests and how we 
tag them need a lot of work if OSM is going to comprehensively capture the very 
wide semantics about these in the real, global world with a finite set of tags 
to capture these semantics.  We'd do well to improve these, but I'll agree with 
anybody who says "this is difficult work."

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Peter Elderson]

Clifford Snow :

> I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to
> indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production.  Thoughts?
>

I am sure there would not. landuse=forest just means the area has trees. I
think there is some consensus about that.
natural=forest: same.
The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for
managed forests has too little practical support.
Since there is no consensus about other aspects than "there are trees",
data users and renderers will stick to this.




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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 18:39, Clifford Snow  wrote:

>
> I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to
> indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production.  Thoughts?
>

>From the last seven or eight times this has come up in the past couple of
years...

1) Somebody says we ought to make a distinction between trees that
are for timber production and trees that are not.

2) The word "forest" is wrong for timber production.  Because of the
vagaries of English it should be "forestry" as forests are not
always for timber production.  It's also syntactically better
English.

3) As always we have the problem of all the landuse=forest
that has already been mapped that would have to be checked.
Which is another argument for using landuse=forestry and
hoping landuse=forest eventually fades away.

4) People bring up various objections to landuse=forestry.
Some insist that we absolutely must stick with landuse=forest
and its unfortunate ambiguities.  Others argue that we shouldn't
make any distinction and that every group of trees should be
natural=wood whether it is used for timber production or not.

5) The argument then rapidly goes downhill, no agreement is
reached, and we drop the issue until the next time it comes up.

6) I get even more cynical than I was the last time the issue
came up.

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 18:56, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> Funeral viewing room sounds like a room where you can view the funeral. I
> suspect modern ones have very large screens and nice sound effects.
>

And perhaps even grandstands.

Funerals generally include the final disposition of the body.  Watching the
coffin being lowered into the grave.  Watching the coffin roll along the
conveyor belt to disappear behind a curtain (and maybe the sound of
the gas jets firing up).

So if it's a room at a cemetery from where you can watch the coffin being
lowered into the grave then maybe there is also a grandstand.

I'd say that "funeral viewing room" is a bad way of attempting to
describe a chapel of rest.  "Pre-funeral viewing room" would be
better, but is really clumsy.

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

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

[Peter Elderson]

Funeral viewing room sounds like a room where you can view the funeral. I 
suspect modern ones have very large screens and nice sound effects.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 27 sep. 2020 om 19:39 heeft woll...@posteo.de het volgende geschreven:
> 
> "In any case, the proposer seems to feel that chapel of rest
> should be used only for dedicated buildings and a different
> tag should be added to indicate a funeral director's with a
> viewing room."
> The proposer feels that a subtag should be used for a funeral director's with 
> a viewing room. But the proposer's preference goes to using the same term for 
> the amenity tag and for the subtag (examples given in the proposal).
> 
> At the same time, may I ask for comments on "funeral viewing rooms"? Apart 
> from its length, it only seems to have advantages.
> 
> Am 27.09.2020 13:55 schrieb Paul Allen:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 10:02, Michael Patrick 
>> wrote:
>> From: Paul Allen 
> 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."
>>> Mmmm  I agree, that's my point. 'Chapel of Rest' isn't a place,
>>> at best it
>>> sometimes might be a dedicated room in a funeral establishment.
>>> Apparently,
>>> it is not infrequently the showroom for caskets if a larger
>>> attendance needs to
>>> be accommodated.
>> It may be as you state it in some cases.  It is not true of all.
>> Here's
>> one where the chapel of rest is a building solely for that purpose:
>> https://www.colinphillipsfunerals.com/our-services/private-chapel/ [6]
>> That does not serve any other purpose.  It is not his offices or
>> showroom.  I know of another one like that a few miles from it.
>> Also, a chapel, even in the religious sense, is not necessarily a
>> separate building.  It originally referred to a small room within
>> a church with its own altar, or a room with an alta in a
>> non-religious building.
>> In any case, the proposer seems to feel that chapel of rest
>> should be used only for dedicated buildings and a different
>> tag should be added to indicate a funeral director's with a
>> viewing room.
> 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.
>>> Connotation of 'service' as in 'floral service', embalming service',
>>> 'cremation service' or otherwise business task / activity like
>>> 'automotive repair service', rather than the religious service
>>> denotation like a mass.
>> I wouldn't expect a religious service at a florist or a car mechanic.
>> When it comes
>> to funerals, however...
>>> From the US Federal Trade Checklist at
>> https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0301-funeral-costs-and-pricing-checklist
>>> [1]
>>> Visitation/viewing — staff and facilities __
>>> Funeral or memorial service — staff and facilities __
>>> Graveside service, including staff and equipment __
>> That's nice.  But it's not British English.  You can, however, use it
>> to argue that editor translations for US English should use visitation
>> for the preset name.
>>> UK funeral industry shows both 'Chapel of Rest', or that term with
>>> visitation / viewing, some just have 'venue rental'. CoR is fairly
>>> typical.
>> Precisely.  CoR seems to be the commonest term for it.  And less
>> ambiguous than "visitation" (people visit patients in hospitals) or
>> "viewing" (people view paintings in art galleries).
> 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.
>>> https://funeralresources.com/resources/viewing-and-visitation-costs/
>>> [2]
>>> https://funerals.org/?consumers=read-funeral-home-price-list/ [3]
>>> https://www.thefuneralsite.com/ResourceCenters/Costs/How_much.html
>>> [4]
>> The first two are in the US.  The third gives me a "problem loading
>> page"
>> error.
>>> ... and hundreds more. Canada seems to be similar to the US.
>> None of which are renowned for using British English.  Again, this is
>> for editor preset translations.
>>> Viewing / Visitation seem to translate well
>> https://www.floridafuneralhome.com/Content/Media/FloridaFuneralHomeAndCrematory/Spa%20-%20Crem%20w%20View%202018-07-01.pdf
>>> [5]
>>> زيارة مشاهدة الجنازة ( Arabic ) goes to 'Funeral
>>> watch visit', i.e. it survives round trips through google Translate.
>> Not pertinent.  The general policy is tags use British English.  There
>> is no
>> requirement that they survive 

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

[wolle68]

"In any case, the proposer seems to feel that chapel of rest
should be used only for dedicated buildings and a different
tag should be added to indicate a funeral director's with a
viewing room."
The proposer feels that a subtag should be used for a funeral director's 
with a viewing room. But the proposer's preference goes to using the 
same term for the amenity tag and for the subtag (examples given in the 
proposal).


At the same time, may I ask for comments on "funeral viewing rooms"? 
Apart from its length, it only seems to have advantages.


Am 27.09.2020 13:55 schrieb Paul Allen:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 10:02, Michael Patrick 
wrote:


From: Paul Allen 



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."


Mmmm  I agree, that's my point. 'Chapel of Rest' isn't a place,
at best it

sometimes might be a dedicated room in a funeral establishment.
Apparently,
it is not infrequently the showroom for caskets if a larger
attendance needs to
be accommodated.


It may be as you state it in some cases.  It is not true of all.
Here's
 one where the chapel of rest is a building solely for that purpose:
https://www.colinphillipsfunerals.com/our-services/private-chapel/ [6]
That does not serve any other purpose.  It is not his offices or
showroom.  I know of another one like that a few miles from it.

Also, a chapel, even in the religious sense, is not necessarily a
 separate building.  It originally referred to a small room within
a church with its own altar, or a room with an alta in a
non-religious building.

In any case, the proposer seems to feel that chapel of rest
should be used only for dedicated buildings and a different
tag should be added to indicate a funeral director's with a
viewing room.


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.


Connotation of 'service' as in 'floral service', embalming service',
'cremation service' or otherwise business task / activity like
'automotive repair service', rather than the religious service
denotation like a mass.


I wouldn't expect a religious service at a florist or a car mechanic.
When it comes
to funerals, however...


From the US Federal Trade Checklist at


https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0301-funeral-costs-and-pricing-checklist

[1]
Visitation/viewing — staff and facilities __
Funeral or memorial service — staff and facilities __
Graveside service, including staff and equipment __


That's nice.  But it's not British English.  You can, however, use it
to argue that editor translations for US English should use visitation
for the preset name.


UK funeral industry shows both 'Chapel of Rest', or that term with
visitation / viewing, some just have 'venue rental'. CoR is fairly
typical.


Precisely.  CoR seems to be the commonest term for it.  And less
ambiguous than "visitation" (people visit patients in hospitals) or
"viewing" (people view paintings in art galleries).


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.


https://funeralresources.com/resources/viewing-and-visitation-costs/
[2]
https://funerals.org/?consumers=read-funeral-home-price-list/ [3]
https://www.thefuneralsite.com/ResourceCenters/Costs/How_much.html
[4]


The first two are in the US.  The third gives me a "problem loading
page"
error.


... and hundreds more. Canada seems to be similar to the US.


None of which are renowned for using British English.  Again, this is
for editor preset translations.


Viewing / Visitation seem to translate well


https://www.floridafuneralhome.com/Content/Media/FloridaFuneralHomeAndCrematory/Spa%20-%20Crem%20w%20View%202018-07-01.pdf

[5]
زيارة مشاهدة الجنازة ( Arabic ) goes to 'Funeral
watch visit', i.e. it survives round trips through google Translate.


Not pertinent.  The general policy is tags use British English.  There
is no
requirement that they survive round trips through google translate.

--

Paul



Links:
--
[1]
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0301-funeral-costs-and-pricing-checklist
[2] 
https://funeralresources.com/resources/viewing-and-visitation-costs/

[3] https://funerals.org/?consumers=read-funeral-home-price-list/
[4] https://www.thefuneralsite.com/ResourceCenters/Costs/How_much.html
[5]
https://www.floridafuneralhome.com/Content/Media/FloridaFuneralHomeAndCrematory/Spa%20-%20Crem%20w%20View%202018-07-01.pdf
[6] 

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:24 AM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used
>>
>
> I don't believe everyone around here will agree with that interpretation.
> I live in an area with significant logging. Typically I will see logging
> trucks bringing in just cut timber to be milled  when I'm out for just a
> short drive. Timber production is a big industry in Alaska, British
> Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.
>

I did a check of Washington and saw that there are a number of
landuse=forest that should be natural=trees. I suspect that it's also
happening elsewhere.

>
>> It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data
>> consumers.
>>
>
> That may be for cartographic interpretation. But researchers may have a
> different opinion. A researcher just interested in potential wildfire areas
> may not be interested in the difference, but someone looking at how much
> land is being used for forestry products may have a different opinion. Or
> in mountainous states where clear cutting often causes landslides. I know
> our state studies where it's dangerous to clear cut because the area is so
> steep.
>
> The wiki on landuse=forest does need some help. We shouldn't be offering a
> tag with such unclear use cases as landuse=forest currently is written.
>

I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to
indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production.  Thoughts?

>
>
> --
@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] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used
>

I don't believe everyone around here will agree with that interpretation.
I live in an area with significant logging. Typically I will see logging
trucks bringing in just cut timber to be milled  when I'm out for just a
short drive. Timber production is a big industry in Alaska, British
Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.

>
> It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data
> consumers.
>

That may be for cartographic interpretation. But researchers may have a
different opinion. A researcher just interested in potential wildfire areas
may not be interested in the difference, but someone looking at how much
land is being used for forestry products may have a different opinion. Or
in mountainous states where clear cutting often causes landslides. I know
our state studies where it's dangerous to clear cut because the area is so
steep.

The wiki on landuse=forest does need some help. We shouldn't be offering a
tag with such unclear use cases as landuse=forest currently is written.

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)

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 10:02, Michael Patrick  wrote:

>
> >> From: Paul Allen 
>>
>> > 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."
>
>
> Mmmm  I agree, that's my point. 'Chapel of Rest' isn't a place, at
> best it
> sometimes might be a dedicated room in a funeral establishment. Apparently,
> it is not infrequently the showroom for caskets if a larger attendance
> needs to
> be accommodated.
>

It may be as you state it in some cases.  It is not true of all.  Here's
one where the chapel of rest is a building solely for that purpose:
https://www.colinphillipsfunerals.com/our-services/private-chapel/
That does not serve any other purpose.  It is not his offices or
showroom.  I know of another one like that a few miles from it.

Also, a chapel, even in the religious sense, is not necessarily a
separate building.  It originally referred to a small room within
a church with its own altar, or a room with an alta in a
non-religious building.

In any case, the proposer seems to feel that chapel of rest
should be used only for dedicated buildings and a different
tag should be added to indicate a funeral director's with a
viewing room.


> > 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.
>>
>
> Connotation of 'service' as in 'floral service', embalming service',
> 'cremation service' or otherwise business task / activity like 'automotive
> repair service', rather than the religious service denotation like a mass.
>

I wouldn't expect a religious service at a florist or a car mechanic.  When
it comes
to funerals, however...

>
> From the US Federal Trade Checklist at
> https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0301-funeral-costs-and-pricing-checklist
>
>
> *   Visitation/viewing — staff and facilities __   Funeral or
> memorial service — staff and facilities __   Graveside service,
> including staff and equipment __*
>

That's nice.  But it's not British English.  You can, however, use it
to argue that editor translations for US English should use visitation
for the preset name.

UK funeral industry shows both 'Chapel of Rest', or that term with
> visitation / viewing, some just have 'venue rental'. CoR is fairly
> typical.
>

Precisely.  CoR seems to be the commonest term for it.  And less
ambiguous than "visitation" (people visit patients in hospitals) or
"viewing" (people view paintings in art galleries).

>
> > 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.
>>
> https://funeralresources.com/resources/viewing-and-visitation-costs/
> https://funerals.org/?consumers=read-funeral-home-price-list/
> https://www.thefuneralsite.com/ResourceCenters/Costs/How_much.html
>

The first two are in the US.  The third gives me a "problem loading page"
error.

... and hundreds more. Canada seems to be similar to the US.
>

None of which are renowned for using British English.  Again, this is
for editor preset translations.

>
> Viewing / Visitation seem to translate well
> https://www.floridafuneralhome.com/Content/Media/FloridaFuneralHomeAndCrematory/Spa%20-%20Crem%20w%20View%202018-07-01.pdf
>  زيارة مشاهدة الجنازة ( Arabic ) goes to 'Funeral watch visit', i.e. it
> survives round trips through google Translate.
>

Not pertinent.  The general policy is tags use British English.  There is no
requirement that they survive round trips through google translate.

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

[Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hi everyone,

After seeing the message on the weekly, I had to chime in.

We recently did the same exercise for the city of Bruges  and we
measured the width of every street in the old city center. The reason is
that the cycle lobbying group wants to change legislation in the city
center to be more bike friendly. Thé argument for this is that the
streets are to narrow for cars and that the "cyclestreet"-legislation
should apply everywhere.

But politics aside, I helped a lot measuring the street widths! It
resulted in a nice map:
https://pietervdvn.github.io/MapComplete/index.html?layout=width=51.21=3.2229

But of course, this is the tagging mailing list, so let's discuss the
technicalities.

First of all, most of the measurements are made with a laser distance
meter. In order to be very objective, we measured from /curb to curb/.
Curbs don't move, where as parking lanes, lines indicating parkings, ...
can move. (If no curb is present, wall of the houses was used). As we
are mainly interested in the /conflict**/arising, we measured at the
narrowest point of the street (but ignoring obstacles as street
furniture). In a few places, the GRB (belgian topographic map with
houses) was used (which is very accurate too).

This width was tagged with 'width:carriageway'.

(Apart from that, we also added parking lane information, which is used
to deduct how much room of the carriageway is used for car parking, how
much for driving, how much for cycling. Based on that, we can calculate
in which streets there is too little space).

If a consensus is reached that this should be some other tag, I'm fine
with retagging this for Bruges - but not in the coming month; the
interactive map has to be widely published the coming days and weeks.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

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

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

[Michael Patrick]

> >> From: Paul Allen 
> >> 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."


Mmmm  I agree, that's my point. 'Chapel of Rest' isn't a place, at best
it
sometimes might be a dedicated room in a funeral establishment. Apparently,
it is not infrequently the showroom for caskets if a larger attendance
needs to
be accommodated.

> 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.
>

Connotation of 'service' as in 'floral service', embalming service',
'cremation service' or otherwise business task / activity like 'automotive
repair service', rather than the religious service denotation like a mass.

>From the US Federal Trade Checklist at
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0301-funeral-costs-and-pricing-checklist


*   Visitation/viewing — staff and facilities __   Funeral or
memorial service — staff and facilities __   Graveside service,
including staff and equipment __*
UK funeral industry shows both 'Chapel of Rest', or that term with
visitation / viewing, some just have 'venue rental'. CoR is fairly
typical.

> 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.
>
https://funeralresources.com/resources/viewing-and-visitation-costs/
https://funerals.org/?consumers=read-funeral-home-price-list/
https://www.thefuneralsite.com/ResourceCenters/Costs/How_much.html
... and hundreds more. Canada seems to be similar to the US.

Viewing / Visitation seem to translate well
https://www.floridafuneralhome.com/Content/Media/FloridaFuneralHomeAndCrematory/Spa%20-%20Crem%20w%20View%202018-07-01.pdf
 زيارة مشاهدة الجنازة ( Arabic ) goes to 'Funeral watch visit', i.e. it
survives round trips through google Translate.

'Chapel of Rest' seems to be one of those terms like 'Take the goat to the
butcher and have the butcher butcher the animal into cuts of meat.' The
location takes on the name of an ephemeral activity that occurs in it, or
the entity temporarily occupying it.

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] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[stevea]

On Sep 27, 2020, at 12:51 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:
> I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter

It isn't anticipated to be "updated."  It is a static boundary where "inside of 
this polygon, there might be burned / destroyed landcover (and perhaps some 
buildings, if they are / were there), outside of this polygon, there is / was 
no fire."

> It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should
> not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire,
> OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter
> than alternative sources

I'm not surveying this (though I would like to, many areas are inaccessible or 
dangerous).  I'm saying the polygon tagged fire=permiter is a useful data 
structure in the map to delineate where the bounds (perimeter) of a fire was 
(now it is "was," for a while it was "is").  So, use ground truth, 
personally-gathered sources, satellite data... to better characterize that what 
was once there (landcover in the form of trees and scrub, largely) is quite 
likely no longer there.  So, "map this area better."

> Obviously, we should (try to) update map where situation changed.

Maybe it wasn't obvious from my posts about this, yes.  This is the whole 
reason for entering these data.

> Delete building that will not be rebuild (mark them as destroyed:building=*
> until aerial imagery will update)
> [deleting buildings and remapping them as they get reconstructed may
> be viable in cases of heavy mapper presence]
> Delete other permanently destroyed objects and so on.

It is still too early to make final determinations of buildings:  some people 
who lost homes to fire will rebuild, some will not.

> > Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest
> or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred?
> 
> AFAIK nothing established, see
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-March/035435.html
> for related discussion about wind damage.

Thank you, that is interesting and relevant!  So, preliminary results are that 
such tagging is rare, but it does happen.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[stevea]

On Sep 27, 2020, at 12:45 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:
> landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used
> 
> It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data 
> consumers.

Mateusz, I do not disagree with you to simply disagree:  landuse=forest is not 
"basically universally interpreted this way."  Rather, I ask you to look at 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Forest which says there are at least a half-dozen 
(six, 6) different approaches taken by OSM mappers using the landuse=forestry 
and natural=wood tags.

"Around here" (in California, USA, where I map and tag forests and wooded 
areas), we use something much like Approach 3, except it isn't strictly true we 
view "most woodland as managed or maintained."  Rather, we view "woodland as 
managed or maintained" when we know it is both "zoned" for Timber Production 
and there is an active "logging permit" that has been legally approved, or 
"forestry action" taking place:  trees being felled, logs being taken away via 
sluice, truck or other method, replanting, etc.

"Around here" (and by contrast to landuse=forestry), we do use the natural=wood 
tag for "predominantly wooded areas where there is no active logging" or 
logging is known to not be permitted.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter

It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should
not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire,
OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter
than alternative sources

> 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

Obviously, we should (try to) update map where situation changed.

Delete building that will not be rebuild (mark them as destroyed:building=*
until aerial imagery will update)
[deleting buildings and remapping them as they get reconstructed may
be viable in cases of heavy mapper presence]

Delete other permanently destroyed objects and so on.

> Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest
or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred?

AFAIK nothing established, see
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-March/035435.html
for related discussion about wind damage.

Sep 24, 2020, 23:30 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

> 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 

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used

It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data consumers.

Sep 25, 2020, 00:05 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us:

> 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 <> stevea...@softworkers.com> > 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 <>> stevea...@softworkers.com>> > 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