Chapels in cemeteries

[+ripraff]

Don't think the requirements are more extensive then usual, they are pretty standard.

 

(churchyard cemetery had the weird requirement for a grave photo to be included).

 

We could have a variable for a cemetery website (usually there is Find A Grave which often has a photo of the chapel).

[+NW_history_buff]

A good category idea and I'm also one who 'haunts' cemeteries often...

 

I just joined the group but do NOT want to be an officer. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by thebeav69

[+elyob]

The word is interment, for burial.  Internment is for a prison camp.

[+T0SHEA]

interment vs internment

Interment means burial -- the act of placing the deceased in a grave or tomb.

The word is often confused with the word "internment" (with an "n"), which means confinement or imprisonment.

[+iconions]

4 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

interment vs internment

Interment means burial -- the act of placing the deceased in a grave or tomb.

The word is often confused with the word "internment" (with an "n"), which means confinement or imprisonment.

Okay - thanks .  As you can probably tell, I was home ill today and playing with even less than a full deck than normal.  That's what I get for answering a question without fully looking at it.  ...and yes, inurnment is a thing - that's what we had for my father when he passed several years ago.  (Very strange to go to the funeral home one day and there is a body in a casket - next day, a brass urn.)  

 

[+fi67]

The category proposal looks good so far. I still have a few cases I have come across that do not really represent the typical cemetery chapel. Would they be included?

 

1) I know at least four former cemetery chapels of former cemeteries. The chapel is still there, not used anymore, and the cemetery has gone. Here in continental Europe cemeteries are often not made for eternity; they can be removed and converted to other uses.

 

2) In the center of our main city cemetery are two large buildings. One contains four chapels, the other one a fifth chapel, an additional hall and administrative rooms.

 

3) The former small church inside a churchyard, that is still used as a cemetery, was rededicated as a cemetery chapel after a larger church was built in the town center.

 

4) Cemetery chapels as stand-alone buildings next to the church on a churchyard cemetery should be no problem. What about a cemetery chapel integrated in the building structure of the main church, but with a separate entrance?

 

[+PISA-caching]

Wow, lots of questions. Here are my opinions:

1. If it was a cemetery chapel, it would qualify. If it is was additionally close to a road/path and converted to a waychapel, I would not accept it.

2. The four chapels would qualify. The 5th one? I don't know. Guess it depends on the proportions. If it is just one little room in a big building, no. If the main purpose of the building is being a chapel and the rest is just one office for administration, yes. But in general, I would love to just see waymarks where you can see from outside that this is a chapel.

3. So it's a bigger chapel now, right? It is a chapel, so I would accept it.
4. I think the chapels should in general be stand-alone structures. If church and chapel just share one wall and the chapel is somehow "attached" to the church (and not included in the church building, like a separated room with an additional entrance), then I would accept it as a separate building.

 

But it will be tricky to take care of all that in the description AND of course all of the above is just my personal opinion.

[+iconions]

3 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

Wow, lots of questions. Here are my opinions:

1. If it was a cemetery chapel, it would qualify. If it is was additionally close to a road/path and converted to a waychapel, I would not accept it.

2. The four chapels would qualify. The 5th one? I don't know. Guess it depends on the proportions. If it is just one little room in a big building, no. If the main purpose of the building is being a chapel and the rest is just one office for administration, yes. But in general, I would love to just see waymarks where you can see from outside that this is a chapel.

3. So it's a bigger chapel now, right? It is a chapel, so I would accept it.
4. I think the chapels should in general be stand-alone structures. If church and chapel just share one wall and the chapel is somehow "attached" to the church (and not included in the church building, like a separated room with an additional entrance), then I would accept it as a separate building.

 

But it will be tricky to take care of all that in the description AND of course all of the above is just my personal opinion.

1.) This would take really good documentation to state that there was a cemetery here.  Again, acceptable in my opinion unless turned into a waychapel.
2.) My definition of "chapel" is the actual physical building, not the separate areas within the building.  I'm using more of an midwestern American definition of chapel as opposed to the more Catholic one of a separate area of worship within the main building.  My opinion would be that two waymarks could be created - one for each physical building.
3.) Again, this would take documentation and proof that regular services are not being held in the chapel.
4.) Again, we are not looking to infringe on churchyard cemeteries - if there isn't a separate building for the chapel, it would have to go into the churchyard cemetery.

[+PISA-caching]

1. Either good documentation or we just believe the poster. :-)
2. Short answer: I agree (1 waymark for the 4 chapels in one building and 1 waymark for the 5th, as long as it is looking like a chapel).
3. I tend to trust people and I'd rather accept a chapel with regular services (because the poster lied to me) than to force all the other waymarkers to prove every detail of their waymark. Maybe I'm not a good reviewer. :-)
4. Ok, but the churchyard cemeteries are (mainly) about the cemeteries, not the church, right?

I have another question: We have a huge cemetery in Vienna with a huge church in the middle and two chapels on both sides of the church with separate entrances. What about these? Acceptable as (1 or 2?) separate waymarks, or do they have to be mentioned in a waymark about the church? Here is an example image.

[+ripraff]

Wow! Great image. Maybe we could have a question, Why do you think this is a cemetery chapel? They might use the name or some information that would help.

[+ripraff]

Sounds like there are going to be more judgement calls than would be apparent. Might take some voting until the category becomes well defined. I am still struggling with the funeral home question. I have never seen one in a cemetery. The function would be similar or the same as a mortuary chapel. I am tempted to say why not include them. Not many people post funeral homes anyway. Being in a cemetery or what used to be a cemetery is a defining or limiting criteria. Except by the name how would you distinguish between funeral homes and mortuary chapels?  A cemetery could be a business and have a mortuary chapel.

[+T0SHEA]

Riverside Memorial Park Cemetery is an example of a funeral home in a cemetery that also has a chapel. We have seen several that also have a funeral home/crematorium/mortuary chapel. 

[+iconions]

31 minutes ago, ripraff said:

Sounds like there are going to be more judgement calls than would be apparent. Might take some voting until the category becomes well defined. I am still struggling with the funeral home question. I have never seen one in a cemetery. The function would be similar or the same as a mortuary chapel. I am tempted to say why not include them. Not many people post funeral homes anyway. Being in a cemetery or what used to be a cemetery is a defining or limiting criteria. Except by the name how would you distinguish between funeral homes and mortuary chapels?  A cemetery could be a business and have a mortuary chapel.

Sorry for pulling an image from Google Maps - one funeral home with a chapel located on cemetery property.  This is D. W. Newcomer's and Sons at 11200 Metcalf in Overland Park Kansas.  My Father-in-Law is actually buried here (he's actually buried under that green tree on the far left.)  and that's the reason I know about this.  http://www.johnsoncountychapel.com/services/  
To get a category approved, it has to be well-defined; it has to be different from other categories.  Aren't chapels within Funeral Homes still just a part of Funeral Homes, much like blue Victorian Homes being part of Victorian Homes - this is why you do not want these waymarked separately.  You will not get your category approved doing that.  This is absolutely spelled out under the peer review.  This is why I am trying to be VERY, VERY particular about chapels within the actual church building - they are a subcategory of the church they are in.  This is why the category is looking for completely separate buildings from a church or a funeral home.    Does that make sense?  I am trying not to get the category knocked due to redundancy.  I still believe there are plenty of these to be found - again, I know of two within five miles of my house.

Edited July 25, 2017 by iconions

[+iconions]

45 minutes ago, PISA-caching said:

1. Either good documentation or we just believe the poster. :-)
2. Short answer: I agree (1 waymark for the 4 chapels in one building and 1 waymark for the 5th, as long as it is looking like a chapel).
3. I tend to trust people and I'd rather accept a chapel with regular services (because the poster lied to me) than to force all the other waymarkers to prove every detail of their waymark. Maybe I'm not a good reviewer. :-)
4. Ok, but the churchyard cemeteries are (mainly) about the cemeteries, not the church, right?

I have another question: We have a huge cemetery in Vienna with a huge church in the middle and two chapels on both sides of the church with separate entrances. What about these? Acceptable as (1 or 2?) separate waymarks, or do they have to be mentioned in a waymark about the church? Here is an example image.

So, please see my reply to ripraff, are these chapels within the church building proper, or are they within those wings?  In the church proper, no, they would not be allowed., If they are in the wings, then yes.  Again, unfortunately due to the way the peer review works, Redundancy is one of the categories judged and allowing for chapels within waymarkable churches would violate the redundancy portion.  I hope this helps.

[+iconions]

9 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

Riverside Memorial Park Cemetery is an example of a funeral home in a cemetery that also has a chapel. We have seen several that also have a funeral home/crematorium/mortuary chapel. 

Thanks for the assist!

[+PISA-caching]

52 minutes ago, iconions said:

So, please see my reply to ripraff, are these chapels within the church building proper, or are they within those wings?  In the church proper, no, they would not be allowed., If they are in the wings, then yes.  Again, unfortunately due to the way the peer review works, Redundancy is one of the categories judged and allowing for chapels within waymarkable churches would violate the redundancy portion.  I hope this helps.

They are in the wings. But I don't know, whether there is a wall between the church area and the chapels area or not. My guess is, that there is a wall between them, but I will check when we go there again.

[+iconions]

1 hour ago, PISA-caching said:

They are in the wings. But I don't know, whether there is a wall between the church area and the chapels area or not. My guess is, that there is a wall between them, but I will check when we go there again.

First, please note that I'm REALLY not trying to be a jerk about this - I'm REALLY trying to be firm, though, to make sure we have our bases covered before we send this category out to peer review.
I know that within a large Catholic Church, there are separate areas of worship within the church that are called Chapels.  This would be a reference to the Sistine Chapel within Saint Peter's Basilica in Vatican City.  If this arrangement is in a cemetery, it would not be allowed in the category.  The issue we have is with definition.  I'm using a more generic term for a chapel which is a small building, usually religious, that will be found on these cemetery grounds.  You are using the more broad term for any chapel, whether or not it is contained within a larger building or church, which we want to avoid due to redundancy.  Walls inside the main building wouldn't matter as the entire building is the church and would be first waymarked as such.  If we then allowed the individual chapels within that main building, we would then be violating the redundancy (using the example from the peer review, are blue Victorian Houses different from All Victorian Homes or just a subset.  In this case, would the chapels inside the church just be a subset of the church?  I believe there would be enough people answering yes to sink the category).  This is why I'm trying to state the same thing on funeral homes with chapels on cemetery grounds.  Funeral homes are a separate category.   Again, I understand the desire to make multiple waymarks on a location, but sometimes that desire has to be tempered, especially when trying to create a new waymark.
I also tend to be one who follows the category pretty closely by the description, that is why I REALLY want to try to get it close to right from the get go...  I hope all of this is of assistance.

Edited July 25, 2017 by iconions

[+PISA-caching]

Maybe I misunderstand your last post or maybe you misunderstood mine. :-) I'm not trying to make these two chapels in (or attached to) a church a valid waymark. I (like you) try to clear things up. Like you, I mainly think of separate buildings when I talk about chapels. We both think that chapels within a big building are not what we are looking for. Am I right so far?

BUT, there are borderline chapels and that's were we have to take a closer look. And I'm not trying to move the border from here to there, but rather try to find a way to describe where the border IS. If for example there is a church and one day they build a little chapel that uses one wall of the church, that would be accepted, right? If they built both at the same time (church for big funerals, chapel for small funerals) with a solid wall between, I would accept the chapel too. If chapel and church are under the same roof and you don't recognize the chapel as a separate part of the church from outside(!) I wouldn't accept it, because it is more a "virtual" chapel (more a part of the church than a separate building). My only problem is: It's hard to discuss all this in a foreign language. I trust that you will find the right words and that I hope (and am pretty sure) that we have the same idea of what we want to see and what not.

[+iconions]

3 minutes ago, PISA-caching said:

Maybe I misunderstand your last post or maybe you misunderstood mine. :-) I'm not trying to make these two chapels in (or attached to) a church a valid waymark. I (like you) try to clear things up. Like you, I mainly think of separate buildings when I talk about chapels. We both think that chapels within a big building are not what we are looking for. Am I right so far?

BUT, there are borderline chapels and that's were we have to take a closer look. And I'm not trying to move the border from here to there, but rather try to find a way to describe where the border IS. If for example there is a church and one day they build a little chapel that uses one wall of the church, that would be accepted, right? If they built both at the same time (church for big funerals, chapel for small funerals) with a solid wall between, I would accept the chapel too. If chapel and church are under the same roof and you don't recognize the chapel as a separate part of the church from outside(!) I wouldn't accept it, because it is more a "virtual" chapel (more a part of the church than a separate building). My only problem is: It's hard to discuss all this in a foreign language. I trust that you will find the right words and that I hope (and am pretty sure) that we have the same idea of what we want to see and what not.

You not only have the disadvantage of trying to discuss this in English, but Kansas American!  LOL!  
Your first paragraph is absolutely spot on.  I want to make absolutely sure we're not talking the Catholic definition of chapel as that would get REALLY messy.  We are definitely on the same page - any chapel that is completely contained within a church would be denied outright.

As far as the chapel built with a "party wall" (sharing a wall with the church without entrance to the church), these would be accepted as it would be a separate building.  You have NO idea of the number of Contributing Buildings I have waymarked that have this arrangement. Again, we are on the same page of this.   
 

[+T0SHEA]

3 hours ago, iconions said:

Walls inside the main building wouldn't matter as the entire building is the church and would be first waymarked as such.  If we then allowed the individual chapels within that main building, we would then be violating the redundancy (using the example from the peer review, are blue Victorian Houses different from All Victorian Homes or just a subset).

Hey Tom - I feel that you've been drinking too deeply at the redundancy well. Extrapolating on your train of thought, steeples become redundant with churches as they are separated from the building by only a wall. Bell towers become redundant with steeples as they actually comprise a part of them. Each has been recognized, at least by the Waymarking community, as being separate and distinct from the other.

As well, the example of the blue Victorian Houses is essentially irrelevant as they are, indeed, a subset of Victorian Houses. As a matter of fact, this example has been irrelevant in most cases where it has been used to bolster an argument. Steeples are not subsets of churches, bell towers are not subsets of steeples. Similarly, chapels, regardless of their configuration, are not subsets of churches. They were, as a rule, designed and built to be unique and separate entities and to serve unique and separate purposes, even if one might be totally enclosed by the other. Such logic would lead us to believe that baptismal fonts within churches were either subsets of their surrounding church or redundant with the church. Again,  the the Waymarking community recognizes them as separate and apart from their environment.

It seems to me, too, that it's time a decision was made on exactly which definition, or whose definition, of the word chapel will be employed here. Kansans and Austrians, to use a somewhat less than broad example, are not likely to totally agree on this point. There seems to be quite a broad range of choices available. Though I seldom refer to Wiki for total enlightenment, I found the Wiki article on chapels somewhat edifying.

EDIT: OR - it may be better to simply accept a chapel on the strength of its name and dispense with any attempt to define it.

As noted earlier by others, this is simply my opinion, right or wrong.

Keith

Edited July 25, 2017 by BK-Hunters

[+ripraff]

http://syracusethenandnow.org/Architects/Silsbee/OakwoodMortuaryChapel.htm

The rural cemetery movement began in America in 1835 with the  Mount Auburn Cemetery in Boston. The movement came to Syracuse in 1859 with establishment of the Oakwood Cemetery in, what was at that time, farm land beyond the city proper.

Because these cemeteries had to accommodate services, crematory functions and the storage of remains during frozen conditions, they required the creation of a new building type: the mortuary chapel.

[+ripraff]

http://www.dignitymemorial.com/en-us/overview.page

Mount Auburn Funeral Home opened in 1997 and is the first funeral home ever to be built within cemetery grounds in Chicago’s western suburbs. The Frank Lloyd Wright-influenced prairie style funeral home contains two chapels within its 12,000-square-foot structure. We are now proud to be a member of the Dignity Memorial® network where we are committed to helping all of our families with compassionate, professional and personal service.

[+ripraff]

Story Chapel, just inside the main entrance to Mount Auburn

 Cemetery, in Cambridge, Mass.  The cemetery, founded in 1831, 

is the first landscaped cemetery in North America. 

[+ripraff]

http://www.old-new-orleans.com/NO_Mortuary_Chapel.html

Their fears were understandable, between 1817-1860, Yellow 
Fever epidemics struck the city 23 times, and the cause had yet to be identified.
Land for a mortuary chapel was chosen at the corner of North Rampart and Conti Streets, within 
walking distance of St. Louis (No. 1) Cemetery and construction began on the church, whose sole 
function would be to bury those who died during Yellow Fever season, from July to December.

[+ripraff]

In 1974, a small group of local investors purchased Mililani Memorial Park & Mortuary. Our purpose in acquisition was to become a full service Memorial Park and Mortuary that offered an extensive selection of memorial arrangements at affordable costs. Families find comfort and convenience with all services and burial arrangements done at one location. http://www.mililanimemorial.com

 

check out the webcam

[+iconions]

31 minutes ago, ripraff said:

In 1974, a small group of local investors purchased Mililani Memorial Park & Mortuary. Our purpose in acquisition was to become a full service Memorial Park and Mortuary that offered an extensive selection of memorial arrangements at affordable costs. Families find comfort and convenience with all services and burial arrangements done at one location. http://www.mililanimemorial.com

 

check out the webcam

I sent out an email to the officer group.  Please respond back to me on it.  Currently, as the category is written, this chapel would not be accepted as it should be waymarked under funeral homes.

[+iconions]

41 minutes ago, ripraff said:

http://www.old-new-orleans.com/NO_Mortuary_Chapel.html

Their fears were understandable, between 1817-1860, Yellow 
Fever epidemics struck the city 23 times, and the cause had yet to be identified.
Land for a mortuary chapel was chosen at the corner of North Rampart and Conti Streets, within 
walking distance of St. Louis (No. 1) Cemetery and construction began on the church, whose sole 
function would be to bury those who died during Yellow Fever season, from July to December.

Again, this is not within the St. Louis Cemetery so it would not be accepted.

[+PISA-caching]

10 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

It seems to me, too, that it's time a decision was made on exactly which definition, or whose definition, of the word chapel will be employed here. Kansans and Austrians, to use a somewhat less than broad example, are not likely to totally agree on this point. There seems to be quite a broad range of choices available. Though I seldom refer to Wiki for total enlightenment, I found the Wiki article on chapels somewhat edifying.

EDIT: OR - it may be better to simply accept a chapel on the strength of its name and dispense with any attempt to define it.

As noted earlier by others, this is simply my opinion, right or wrong.

Keith

I'm sure we will have a good description soon and Kansas and Austria are closer that one might think. :-) 

[+ripraff]

"cemeteries had to accommodate services, crematory functions and the storage of remains during frozen conditions, they required the creation of a new building type: the mortuary chapel."

This provides a pretty good definition: buildings in cemeteries that "accommodate services, crematory functions and the storage of remains during frozen conditions". Funeral homes fit this description. The reason for omitting them is only to avoid duplication. Different categories list categories that disqualify waymarks. If they fit these categories they can't be in this one. Some categories allow inclusion such as the churchyard cemeteries doesn't keep you from putting the church into a church category or the cemetery into a cemetery category. Categories such as dated buildings are never excluded by the duplication rule.

We can be safe and exclude funeral homes or include funeral homes that are in cemeteries and use the churchyard example. (Removing them if it is a sticky point for approval.)

All the other overlap categories can be made distinct. The two mortuary chapels in way chapels would probably be grandfathered, but not accepted after mortuary chapels or cemetery chapels is approved.

I think funeral homes in cemeteries is a more recent development and you don't see them around me, because the cemeteries are older. There are probably more further west where settlement came later. I would not see any to post, but others obviously would. I don't know how common it is. If most funeral homes are in cemeteries, you wouldn't want them, if only a few then why not. 

Chapels as part of churches I see as more problematic. Services obviously wouldn't be enough. If they were ONLY used for funerals, and storage of remains or cremation AND they could be separated from the main church AND they were in a cemetery, a case could be made.

 

[+iconions]

55 minutes ago, ripraff said:

"cemeteries had to accommodate services, crematory functions and the storage of remains during frozen conditions, they required the creation of a new building type: the mortuary chapel."

This provides a pretty good definition: buildings in cemeteries that "accommodate services, crematory functions and the storage of remains during frozen conditions". Funeral homes fit this description. The reason for omitting them is only to avoid duplication. Different categories list categories that disqualify waymarks. If they fit these categories they can't be in this one. Some categories allow inclusion such as the churchyard cemeteries doesn't keep you from putting the church into a church category or the cemetery into a cemetery category. Categories such as dated buildings are never excluded by the duplication rule.

We can be safe and exclude funeral homes or include funeral homes that are in cemeteries and use the churchyard example. (Removing them if it is a sticky point for approval.)

All the other overlap categories can be made distinct. The two mortuary chapels in way chapels would probably be grandfathered, but not accepted after mortuary chapels or cemetery chapels is approved.

I think funeral homes in cemeteries is a more recent development and you don't see them around me, because the cemeteries are older. There are probably more further west where settlement came later. I would not see any to post, but others obviously would. I don't know how common it is. If most funeral homes are in cemeteries, you wouldn't want them, if only a few then why not. 

Chapels as part of churches I see as more problematic. Services obviously wouldn't be enough. If they were ONLY used for funerals, and storage of remains or cremation AND they could be separated from the main church AND they were in a cemetery, a case could be made.

 

From the Funeral Home Category Description:  "To waymark the many Funeral Homes, Parlors, and Mortuaries worldwide who offer funeral services, and comfort to those families in need during the difficult times of a loss of a loved one."  In order to provide funeral services, by definition, one would have to have a room or "chapel" to do so.  You would be being redundant by allowing the Waymarking of cemetery funeral home "chapels" in this category.  It has nothing to do with being safe - it has to do with expanding a category unnecessarily to allow for multiple waymarks.  I like numbers as much as the next guy, but really, just because a funeral home has a place to conduct funerals, which by its very definition 99.99% will have in order to fully be able to conduct their business, so why allow them?  I have never been to a funeral home that didn't have a chapel or parlor that could conduct a funeral, especially for those who were not religious.  The only difference that would be between the funeral home and the funeral home located on cemetery grounds would be location.  That is what I have been trying to state for two days - there is no difference except for location.  As far as a number - right off the top of my head I know of five funeral homes on cemetery property just in the Kansas City area and that isn't even looking up on Google, although the number doesn't matter.  

[+lumbricus]

In Germany we call it Aussegnungshalle or Trauerhalle but also Friedhofskapelle. Wikipedia Is it that what we talking about here?

[+iconions]

1 hour ago, lumbricus said:

In Germany we call it Aussegnungshalle or Trauerhalle but also Friedhofskapelle. Wikipedia Is it that what we talking about here?

That is exactly what we are taking about - a place, not a church, where the dead are mourned and then buried out in the grounds.  These locations cannot be waymarked as a church because regular religious services do not take place.  

[+T0SHEA]

To simplify:

Will this category accept a "Chapel" that is part of a funeral home located in a cemetery?  Yes or No

Will this category accept a "Chapel" that is part of a church located in a cemetery? Yes or No

[+iconions]

10 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

To simplify:

Will this category accept a "Chapel" that is part of a funeral home located in a cemetery?  Yes or No

Will this category accept a "Chapel" that is part of a church located in a cemetery? Yes or No

No and no

 

[+MountainWoods]

I agree with "no and no".  Since there are other categories for those buildings, just forget about the fact that they also contain a chapel.
 

Quote

Not everything in the world needs to be Waymarked.

 

[+fi67]

I really like this discussion. Often, new categories only show their weak points after they go live, because everyone thinks that it is clear what is meant, without recognizing that these mental pictures might be very different.

Whatever the groups decides, I am fine with it, just because it is a decision and something is defined better. All the examples I had, are already waymarked, mainly in national heritage list categories. If I have a chance to cross-post, then I'll do, if not, I will go on to my next finds.

[+T0SHEA]

2 hours ago, iconions said:

No and no

There. That was easy. Now that we're past that, it there any way we could get a look at the current proposal as it stands, on the off chance that it may contain something we might find objectionable and egregious? 

Keith

[+iconions]

31 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

There. That was easy. Now that we're past that, it there any way we could get a look at the current proposal as it stands, on the off chance that it may contain something we might find objectionable and egregious? 

Keith

Description:

Identify chapels within the property area of a cemetery. These chapels provide a place for families to gather at the cemetery, out of the weather, to say goodbye to their loved ones.

Expanded Description:

Many cemeteries have a chapel where families gather to pay last respects to the deceased. These chapels can be be simple country affairs to quite elaborate. The purpose of this category is to identify these chapels.

To qualify, these chapels must be on cemetery property. They must not hold regular church services. They also must be free-standing buildings not attached to funeral homes or churches. They also must not permanently contain remains of deceased individuals and must be able to be used multiple times. These also need to be permanent, fully-enclosed structures - no canopies or pavilions will be allowed. Temporary Crypts used to hold the deceased before burial are also not allowed. The category is interested in the actual physical building.

NOTE: If the building has more than one "chapel" inside, waymark the entire building as one waymark, not each individual "chapel" inside.

NOTE: Funeral Homes (defined as businesses that prepare bodies for burial, inurnment, or cremation) with Funerary Chapel attached located in a cemetery will be denied, however, should the Chapel be attached to a Cemetery Office, these will be approved. Questions should be directed to an Officer prior to submission.

The following have their own category. Submissions that are deemed needing to go to the other category will be referred to the other category and the Cemetery Chapel waymark denied.

• Mausoleums
• Churchyard Cemeteries
• Funeral Homes
• Waychapels
• Outdoor Altars

Instructions for Posting a Cemetery Chapels Waymark:

1. COORDINATES must be obtained by a personal visit to the site and should be taken at the entrance of the chapel, if possible, or to the entrance to the chapel or cemetery.
2. PHOTOS: Please read carefully the photo requirements as they are more extensive than usual. In order to document the status of the cemetery chapel and to add a little more value to this waymark category, the following THREE specific photos are required:
   • Closeup photo of the entire Cemetery Chapel building.
   • Reference area photo of the Chapel and the cemetery, preferably a different angle than the closeup photo.
   • Photo of signage either on the Chapel and/or of the Cemetery. This third photo will be waived should no signage exist for either the cemetery or the chapel.

   NOTE: These are the minimum requirements. If one of these elements is not obtainable, exceptions will be made as long as an explanation is provided. There is some flexibility here as long as the chapel waymark is well presented. Additional photos of interest are encouraged.

3. DESCRIPTION: Provide as much information and history as possible. Dates, historical significance, current status, etc. of the Chapel and of the Cemetery. A long description is required.
4. WAYMARK NAME FORMAT: The name of the waymark MUST follow this format: Name of Cemetery Chapel - City, State/Province If it is not within a city or town, the please use another regional designation such as county, borough - whatever best identifies the location of the Cemetery Chapel.

SPECIAL NOTE: While the details outlined in our category description, and the requirements listed in the posting instructions, cover the MINIMUM elements and standards for all waymarks in this category, each waymark will also be evaluated by a volunteer reviewer for overall quality and appropriateness. If a reviewer deems that there are deficiencies in some aspect of the waymark, the waymark may be either declined or accepted with request for changes and/or additions in either content or format.

Each waymark will be evaluated on its own merits. We will endeavor to be reasonable and flexible while maintaining the quality standards for the category. If there is a disagreement, try to work it out with the evaluating officer, or appeal to the group leader, but we reserve the right to accept or decline a waymark based on our best judgement.

LANGUAGE NOTE: We recognize Waymarking as a global hobby and welcome waymarks from all countries. Because of our international scope, we also acknowledge ENGLISH as our lingua franca. English will create the highest level of accessibility globally. All waymarks must have at least a short description in the long description section in ENGLISH. We encourage bilingual and multilingual waymarks, but one of the languages must be English. We have volunteer translators to help.

Relying on software or internet based translators, such as Babylon and Google Translate, may NOT yield accurate translations that are intelligible. Use these only when there is no alternative. Although we do not expect grammatical perfection, a waymark may be declined if there the English language is not understandable.

[+T0SHEA]

41 minutes ago, iconions said:

Relying on software or internet based translators, such as Babylon and Google Translate, may NOT yield accurate translations that are intelligible. Use these only when there is no alternative. Although we do not expect grammatical perfection, a waymark may be declined if there the English language is not understandable.

Looks like Google translator failed...

[+iconions]

7 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

Looks like Google translator failed...

So much for copying and pasting from other approved categories!

 

[+ripraff]

I am ok with the way the category is now. I think the description is clear. It is too bad we can't include funeral homes, I really liked that one in Hawaii with the webcam! Think it is worth the trip to Hawaii to waymark it as a funeral home? Since it can already be way marked I guess it isn't a loss.  This description will handle the chapel I started with. Go for it, onto the next step.

[+T0SHEA]

OK, I read it through. A bit of the verbiage is a tad clumsy, but altogether better than a great many existing categories. Nothing to get our knickers in a knot over.

Much to my delight, should I find a stand alone chapel owned and/or operated by a funeral chapel home, I can submit it and expect it to be approved forthwith.

Keith

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by BK-Hunters

[+MountainWoods]

Doesn't matter who owns/operates it, even if it's the King of Prussia!  Main thing is what it is, not whose it is. 

Is it ready for Peer Review?  I almost never follow these category creations, but I have to admit that this one caught my attention.  Thanks for all the hard work, Tom.

[+iconions]

1 hour ago, MountainWoods said:

Doesn't matter who owns/operates it, even if it's the King of Prussia!  Main thing is what it is, not whose it is. 

Is it ready for Peer Review?  I almost never follow these category creations, but I have to admit that this one caught my attention.  Thanks for all the hard work, Tom.

It's been sent to the officers to vote on.  They have three days to submit their vote and it must be unanimous.  Once that is done, the category goes into peer review.

[+ripraff]

Finally found the link for the vote!

[+ripraff]

The German chapel is gorgeous. This is going to be a good category.

[+lumbricus]

I'm still not sure if chapel is the right word. These structures/buildings are not real chapels, they often look like chapels.

[+ripraff]

The name they were given in the Rural Cemetery movement was mortuary chapels. "Real chapels" would probably be under churches. They have funeral services which gives them chapel functions.

[+MountainWoods]

After these last couple of posts, I was motivated to look up the word Chapel in the English dictionary.   First of all, these really are chapels because they meet at least one of the several definitions in the various dictionaries.

Secondly, it is true that if you just use the word Chapel, then it brings in a whole lot of other things that we aren't looking for, like rooms within a church or funeral home or whatever.  However, since we are talking about Cemetery Chapels here, that precludes a lot of those other definitions.  Furthermore, the category description goes on to clarify the narrower definition that we really want.

Should we rely on a category description to do such narrowing?  I think there are other categories whose name does not fully describe what is being looked for -- otherwise, what is the description for?  If we start playing games with the name to get it down to the narrow meaning we are looking for, how long would the name have to be?

Stand-Alone Cemetery Chapels Where Services Are Not Regularly Held, But Only On Funerary Occasions .......  (ad nauseum)

(Might as well put the bulk of the description in the name!)

Personally I am in favor of leaving the name as it is.  Let the description do the rest.  Many times I've seen a category name in the Full List and wondered what it was, and only having my curiosity satisfied by reading the description.  Sometimes the result is something more specific than first comes to mind just reading the category name.

[+lumbricus]

Thanks ripraff and MountainWoods for clarifying. I hope the name chapel will not lead to many 'Nay' votes in the peer review. Example: I've not been in the forum for a while, wait there's a peer review, what chapels? Cemeteries? We have both, for sure I vote 'Nay'. -> Hopefully not many are voting like this. But I still have mixed feelings with chapels, but on the other hand I have no better name for it.