<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">sent from a phone</div><div dir="ltr"><br>On 17. Dec 2018, at 14:36, Sergio Manzi <<a href="mailto:smz@smz.it">smz@smz.it</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">So, to be clear, you are ok with soft_storey being a <b>sub-key</b>
of building:structure (and hence
building:structure:soft_storey=yes/no), </div></blockquote><br><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers, Martin </div></body></html>