On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:58 AM Michael Patrick <geodes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because their may not have been very many of these left after multiple > earthquakes? > Interesting theory :) There are hundreds of thousands of these sort of buildings in California alone: it's a pretty big deal. First, it might be noticed that the term, even in OSM, is not used in > isolation, it is part > of an extensive internally consistent system of terms from a survey of a > particular part > of the world.[...] > In the western United States, designating a building as a 'soft_story' > visually with the intended meaning that it was at seismic risk, you > would be off base. > I want to re-iterate that the intention of this discussion is to find a way to tag on OSM buildings that are **officially** defined as Soft Story by the appropriate agencies. This is not about doing ground inspections and visual recognition of buildings vulnerable to earthquakes done by random volunteers. They examples you gave make an interesting point. Who > maintains this in OSM, i.e. if a retrofit is accomplished, do you > still designate it as soft story? > In San Francisco we have NERT volunteers who are already maintaining data about soft story buildings in their areas but they are not using OSM. These volunteers look at the *official* public data from SF government and mark things on paper, excel tables, their private google maps. The intention here is to help the NERT volunteers to standardize on OSM instead. > What about addresses which > are demo'd and new construction? Also, for various reasons, > many, many retrofits are not done under a permit, or not > specifically identified as a seismic retrofit. > Again, this doesn't apply to California. Anything done to a building in California must go through public permits *and* laws mandate specifically retrofitting for buildings that are by law identified as 'soft story'. Demolished buildings and new constructions in California aren't soft story according to law. > However, what I think what you want to do is still > possible and could be really, really useful, if it > followed a format ( like one of the VSMs) that > provided the complete set of characteristics. > I agree it would be cool but NERT volunteers don't have the resources for doing this. Plus, it would be out of scope for them: the job has already been done by San Francisco DBI already (and other DBIs across the state). A summary of the discussion so far: - OpenDRI used building:soft_storey=yes (and some mis-spelled variations) - Other people in Nepal used building:irregularity:type=soft_storey - over-namespacing is considered harmful Given that soft storey is a characteristic of a building, I'm starting to think that we have two options: 1 - "soft_storey" as its own key, with values "yes" and "retrofitted". The value "No" is redundant. 2 - soft_storey as key in the building namespace, so it is building:soft_storey="yes" or "retrofitted" Any thoughts? /stef PS > ( another kind of soft story > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Tower_(San_Francisco)#Sinking_and_tilting_problem > ) > Totally different story (not storey :))
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
