[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -Funeral hall

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Wed Aug 19 16:37:59 UTC 2020

With respect to the proposed key, I would invite you to consider an
alternative way of tagging this function.
In various countries and in various religions the approaches on how to say
good-bye to the dead are different.
I am thinking of the "camera ardente" in Italy or the "Aufbahrung" in
Germany, these are ways of providing this in different contexts. What about
a tag that can be added to any kind of place, a funeral director's or a
chapel or the town hall, indicating that this kind of farewell can be
I do not have the correct wording in GB English right now ("laying out"?),
but the concept would be not to create a tag that implies a dedicated
building, but to create a tag for the function that can be added to a
building or a "shop".
<this would obviously include the possibility of tagging a dedicated
funeral hall.


On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 17:59, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>

> In the US, there are privately owned cemeteries, often with a private
> funeral home / mortuary building on the site. You can buy a plot and also
> pay for the funeral services, including the use of a hall for a viewing,
> reception or funeral service (religious or otherwise).
>  E.g.:
> https://www.dignitymemorial.com/funeral-homes/glendale-az/west-resthaven-funeral-home/4707
> - a funeral home and private cemetery.
> In many American cities most of the cemeteries, crematoriums and
> mausoleums are privately owned and operated.
> So my question is if we should add this new tag to the reception / service
> halls which are found at at private funeral homes / mortuaries as well?
> Often these are in the same building as the crematorium and the morgue
> (where bodies are prepared and stored prior to burial or cremation), and
> the offices and reception for the funeral home are also there.
> Or are we only thinking to use this new tag for stand-alone halls?
> It would also be good to clarify how these are different than a
> place_of_worship. For example, consider the many non-sectarian chapels and
> prayer rooms found in airports, shopping centres, hospitals, and similar
> public facilities. Aren't those tagged as amenity=place_of_worship - or is
> that also a mistake?
> - Joseph Eisenberg
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:13 AM <wolle68 at posteo.de> wrote:
>> Not important at all. I just think that if it is ancillary to the
>> business of selling coffins, transporting corpses, preparing them for
>> burial, doing paperwork in relation to that etc. (what the French call a
>> "funérarium"), then it doesn't deserve a tag distinct from the funeral
>> directors tag (but if a majority think otherwise, I don't have strong
>> feelings about it either).
>> Am 19.08.2020 15:47 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>> > sent from a phone
>> >
>> >>> On 19. Aug 2020, at 15:33, wolle68 at posteo.de wrote:
>> >> I could imagine rare cases of a privately run cemetery not linked to
>> >> any religion or belief/life stance and where there is such a building.
>> >> But typically, they would be public.
>> >
>> >
>> > let me rephrase my question: how important is it that the facility is
>> > “public”?
>> > IMHO this feature should have a functional definition only, everything
>> > else depends on the context and is not really relevant.
>> >
>> > Cheers Martin
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200819/d1c4561d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list