On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:19 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is at least debatable, I know there are some people who love long > structured tags, although this idea is in a minority in Osm tagging, most > people do not use tags like this. It doesn’t seem necessary in this case to > use a structured name, I would not expect other “soft_storey”s in different > domains. > Ah! that makes sense. soft_storey=yes/no as its own key would be used also to keep track of the status of reinforcement. (more about this below) > The bigger problem could be verifiability. OSM is about crowd sourced > geodata while this property seems to require expert capabilities and > additional information you cannot get non-destructively on the ground? > A soft story building can be identified visually by the trained eye and such buildings are inherently weaker than others in earthquakes, even if they've been reinforced. That said, even among soft story buildings there are degrees of weakness and higher rigidity is better. To address this, there are laws and building regulations. In California, the location of soft story buildings is shared publicly including their reinforcement status. A soft_storey key could have value "yes" or "reinforce complete" according to local law? I got interested in this tag because I'm working with San Francisco NERT volunteers to add the official SF soft story database from https://sfdbi.org/soft-story-properties-list to OSM. Eventually, we'd like to do a mass import but before even going close to it, I thought that first we should reach an agreement on which key/value to use.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
