Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 3:44 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > usually the answer to this is we do not want to be merely redistributing > authoritative data that OSM mappers can not improve. Sorry, I am not making myself clear enough. This data can be modified and improved by OSM mappers. It's

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

sent from a phone > On 29. Dec 2018, at 22:00, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > > 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. usually the answer to this is we do

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:58 AM Michael Patrick 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

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 1:17 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > indeed, that's what I was suspecting. Would it be possible to give mappers > summary advice on a short wikipage how to identify potential soft storey > buildings? Or is this something that requires expert training? > This requires

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

Am Do., 20. Dez. 2018 um 09:58 Uhr schrieb Michael Patrick < geodes...@gmail.com>: > ...'Soft_storey' is part of a rapid VSM ( Rapid Visual Screening) process > ( see Table 3 at https://bit.ly/2S60CE6 for a global list of these, The > U.S.A. FEMA https://bit.ly/2QKVhp5 ) > In the western United

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

> A few years ago, there was an effort (promoted by World Bank, it seems) to > map buildings in OSM for Katmandu where they used key buidling:soft_storey=yes/no. > They never proposed a formal tag. The results of that effort is a bit confusing and I'm not sure it's the best approach. Because

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

Am Mi., 19. Dez. 2018 um 11:30 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > > "soft story" is actually an attribute of the whole building, not just one >> floor. It's a recognized classification of a structural characteristic of >> buildings. >> > Yes and no. > According to Wikipedia [1], (and using British

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

sent from a phone > On 18. Dec 2018, at 17:59, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > > 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. then the reinforcement simply wasn’t

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

> On Dec 17, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > 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? > For

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:19 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 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

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

sent from a phone > On 17. Dec 2018, at 14:36, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > So, to be clear, you are ok with soft_storey being a sub-key of > building:structure (and hence building:structure:soft_storey=yes/no), It is at least debatable, I know there are some people who love long structured

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

So, to be clear, you are ok with soft_storey being a *sub-key* of building:structure (and hence building:structure:soft_storey=yes/no), but not it being a *value* (building:structure=soft_storey)? If this is the case... we perfectly agree! :-) Cheers! On 2018-12-17 14:23, Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

sent from a phone > On 17. Dec 2018, at 13:34, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > I added emphasys to part of your quote to underline how I fail to understand > how a "structural detail" cannot be construed as a sub-key of... structure. you should rather have looked at the whole thread, I was

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

Hello Martin, On 2018-12-17 11:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > yes, _*it is a structural detail*_ (insufficient stiffening/strutting, if I > interpret it correctly), that's why it is _*not suitable as a value for > building:structure*_, as that key is about the structural system, not about >

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

Am Mo., 17. Dez. 2018 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Stefano Maffulli < smaffu...@gmail.com>: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:17 AM Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> no, this clearly isn’t a suitable key because the soft story property >> from what you wrote above is about a

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

Yeah... you're right... "/Buildings are classified as having a "soft story" if that level is less than 70% as stiff as the floor immediately above it, or less than 80% as stiff as the average stiffness of the three floors above it./" [1] hard to eyeball that... But the key would be right for

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

Is "soft storey" something that is officially declared, or would it only be based on an individual mappers opinion? As it refers to the possibly enhanced danger of a building collapsing during an earthquake, are we leaving ourselves open to potential complaints from a building owner that we have

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

For what is worth, it sounds good to me. If you want to be even more precise and "/taxonomist/-minded", it could be building:structure:soft_storey=yes/no (/no being the default value/). Sergio On 2018-12-17 00:42, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > So far, building:soft_storey:y/n seems to be the

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:17 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > no, this clearly isn’t a suitable key because the soft story property from > what you wrote above is about a structural detail in some floors while > building structure is about the general structural system of a building or > part of

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

On 16/12/18 20:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 15. Dec 2018, at 23:47, Stefano Maffulli > wrote: For example, building:structure is widely used to tell if buildings are made of masonry, reinforced concrete, etc. It would make sense for

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

sent from a phone > On 15. Dec 2018, at 23:47, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > > For example, building:structure is widely used to tell if buildings are made > of masonry, reinforced concrete, etc. It would make sense for soft_storey to > be a value of that key. >

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 10:49 PM Stefano Maffulli wrote: > > Question for the community: does it make sense to add soft story > information using the key building:soft_storey=y/n (similar to > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:fireproof) or should I > use

[Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

Hello folks, i'm a bit confused about how to map soft story buildings. The Wikipedia definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_story_building is soft story building is a multi-story building in which one or more floors have windows, wide doors, large unobstructed commercial spaces, or other