# Atlas of Defects within a Global Building Inspection System
## 3 Results
They may be recorded for off-site assessment, but at least one visit to the site under inspection is required. Some signs of this type of data may be identified in photographs, but they generally go beyond the visual information (e.g., a cloudy photograph may not correspond to low temperatures). Therefore, non-visual information should be taken into account while reading the atlas of defects (e.g., Figure 3, level 2 of \"A-A3 Dirt and accumulation of debris\" in external claddings of pitched roofs). The aesthetical value of the affected areas is generally determined by the importance of the facade, roof or flooring in the context of the building. Typically, in current buildings, the front facade has high aesthetical value due to being adjacent to a public street and encompassing the main entrance to the building, while side and rear facades normally have medium and low aesthetical value, respectively. Since the photographs that illustrate the atlas of defects tend to focus on the pathological phenomena, the aesthetical value of the building elements where they are detected is not obvious. This is the case in the pictures illustrating the column of wall renders in Figure 3. If the case of \"Dirt and accumulation of debris\" (A-A3), illustrating level 3 of urgency of repair in wall renders, occurred on the front facade of the building, it would then be considered of level 1, thus requiring immediate intervention, instead of intervention in the long-term. As for safety risks for passers-by, the criteria to determine the urgency of repair of some defects in some building elements/materials may refer to slippery floorings, risk of stumbling or the possibility of elements detaching and falling from facade claddings (as proposed by the system of evaluation of facades of [PERSON] et al. [63]). These occurrences are not usually evident in photographs, being identified through a tactile assessment or depending on the height of the phenomenon. For instance, the possibility of a ceramic tile falling from a facade is associated with different safety risks according to the height of the defect: risks are lower immediately above the floor than at 10 m high. Still, that height is not usually understandable in photographs centred on defects. So, the unclear expression of safety risks needs to be considered while referring to the atlas of defects. This is the case in the picture illustrating the occurrence of \"Oriented cracking on the current surface\" (A-C2) on a natural stone cladding with level 0 of urgency of repair (Figure 4). The percentage quantification of the affected area is a characteristic of the defect that depends not only on its extent but also on the extent of the whole surface. Although it is possible to estimate the absolute area affected by the defect, whether using on-site measurements or reference elements in the photograph (like tiles or windows with known size), the whole surface where the defect occurs is not usually visible in defect-centred photographs. For that reason, pictures like those illustrating the column of wall renders in Figure 3 do not provide all the information needed to determine the urgency of repair of situations of \"Dirt and accumulation of debris\" (A-A3). In short, the usefulness of the atlas of defects depends on the inseparable combination of exemplifying photographs with descriptive criteria. Moreover, it should be stressed that the same defect may manifest itself in different ways, even in the same type of building element/material (e.g., different fungi). In its current state, the atlas of defects is not an exhaustive catalogue of all possible forms of defects.