[Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?
smaffulli at gmail.com
Sat Dec 29 21:00:33 UTC 2018
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:58 AM Michael Patrick <geodesy99 at gmail.com>
> Because their may not have been very many of these left after multiple
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
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
> 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"
> ( another kind of soft story
Totally different story (not storey :))
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging