Proposal:Contractor
(Redirected from Proposed features/contractor)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Contractor | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Rejected (inactive) |
| Tagging: | contractor=* |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2017-02-21 |
| RFC start: | 2018-03-01 |
| Vote start: | 2018-03-18 |
| Vote end: | 2018-04-01 |
Proposal
This tag would be used to name the contractor who built a building or other structure.
Rationale
Similar to the architect tag, this information is an important part of understanding the built environment.
Examples
Turner, Balfour Beatty, Gilbane, Swinerton, Hunt, etc. Tag should contain only the original General Contractor who built the building.
Tagging
contractor=*
Applies to
Ways and Areas
Rendering
This tag would not be rendered in default maps
Features/Pages affected
This new tag would only add additional information to existing features.
External Discussions
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Voting
Voting closed
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was rejected with 1 vote for, 6 votes against and 0 abstentions.
I oppose this proposal. What Csmale said is correct: the contractors may be more than one, so deal with the construction of different parts of the building, or with the installation of the services he owns (electricity, water, gas, etc.). --EneaSuper (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC).
I approve this proposal. --Cbbaze (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)- I oppose this proposal. contractor is a temporary employee, builder should be used --Ndm (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. in my understanding of the language, a contractor is someone who provides a service. it could be the roofing contractor or the person who put in the lights, or the person who designed a database. the tag "contractor" is too generic. --Woodpeck (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. If we give a more specific meaning ("main building contractor") to a generic term ("contractor") this will set us up for problems in the future... The tag should be self-explanatory. --Csmale (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I also oppose this proposal because the name is not sufficiently explicit / unambigous. Also, the concept for this tag stems from a certain (limited) idea how things can be built or are built in a certain context (one single contractor with either a lot of capabilities or sub-contractors), but there are infinite possibilities how to organize (and possibly divide into smaller pieces) big construction work (usually based on contracts taylored for the scope / project).--Dieterdreist (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Because that's no geoinformation --14:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
