Proposal:Developer
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Developer | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Rejected (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Ilias |
| Tagging: | developer=*
|
| Applies to: | |
| Definition: | Company (or person) responsible for initiating the development of a building or project, typically a real estate developer. |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2025-06-18 |
| RFC start: | 2025-06-19 |
| Vote start: | 2025-08-17 |
| Vote end: | 2025-08-31 |
Proposal
This proposal aims to approve the tag developer=* in order to standardize its usage.
Rationale
Similar to engineer=* or architect=* (which was approved), this tag helps identify the company or organization that developed a building, apartment complex, housing development, office building, skyscraper, school, etc. This conveys valuable information, especially for users interested in urban development, construction, and real estate projects. It's currently used more than 8,000 times.
Addressing concerns
- Similar tags and confusion: see Key:developer#Not to be confused with where I listed some similar tags and explained their difference with
developer=*. - SPVs (special-purpose vehicles): these are companies built by and for just one or a few real estate projects. Most of the time, these are simply set up for liability/tax reasons on paper and are not marketed as the developer of the project. The main, more popular company is marketed as the developer instead, in order to encourage people to have more trust and invest in the project. The
developer=*tag should reflect the actual main developer. - Subsidiaries: concerns were raised about whether to tag
developer=*with the parent/holding company or with the subsidiary.developer=*should always use the most publicly visible or locally marketed name, like the subsidiary/brand. Example: the real estate holding company Groupe Addoha has 3 subsidiaries: Addoha for social housing, Coralia for mid-range housing, and Prestigia for luxury housing. Thedeveloper=*tag of each development should be tagged with one of the 3 subsidiaries, who are the actual developers, not the parent company who only owns them. - Project management firms: this tag is not for real estate project management firms, which designate companies providing a range of services to developer, e.g. planning, budgeting, scheduling, risk management, and stakeholder communication. This tag is for the actual developer of the project.
- Verifiability: some people raised concerns about this tag being impossible to verify. That is factually wrong, especially for big real estate developments, which represents the majority of uses of this tag. Real estate developers very frequently display signs during and after construction to advertise their project. There's even a Category:Real estate signs on Wikimedia Commons. Examples:
Complementary tags
In order to standardize, structure and link developers and their projects, some complementary tags can be added, e.g.:
developer:wikidata=*: Links the developer entity to a structured Wikidata item.developer:wikipedia=*: Links the Wikipedia page of the developer.developer:website=*: Points to the official website of the developer.developer:type=*: Specifies the type of developer (e.g. private, public, government).
Comments
Please comment on the forum thread or the discussion page.
Voting
Voting closed
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was rejected with 14 votes for, 7 votes against and 3 abstentions.
Nevertheless, developer=* has since become the most widely used tag for indicating the developer of a project, with over 9,000 uses, far ahead of similar tags.
I oppose this proposal. I think for the most part, this isn't really data that belongs in OSM, and is hard/impossible to verify on the ground. It's fine to use if you really want to record this, but I don't think we should be encouraging mappers to do so with an "approved" status --ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. The verifiability argument makes no sense. OSM already has tons of tags you can't verify on the ground. How do you know a building was built in 2015? How do you know the operator/architect of a building? It's not like the developer of a project comes from a shady source. They always put up signs saying "A project developed by...". Many have a list of their developments right on their website. I find this tag brings valuable info to OSM. --Ilias (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. While I can see this being potentially a bit confusing to use (at least initially), I support this being standardised and seeing greater adoption. I can see a use case for someone having issues with a certain developer of an estate, and wanting to know what other developments of theirs to avoid (or the opposite). --GuardedBear (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I have already expressed my concern about this tag in the forum discussion earlier and have not changed my mind since --Map HeRo (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --PanierAvide (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. While I see some of the potential issues, especially with historic verifiability (although it seems like most of the opposition is basically "I cannot find this info"), and this seems more like data for Wikidata, I have come across larger local projects that this key would fit really well (and wouldn't fit other keys that well) because they are prominently advertised as part of a certain developer's project, in fact often with a name that includes the developer's brand. HellMap (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Yes, this information is verifiable on the ground, if you or the photomapper were there at the right time. (And if it isn't verifiable, then don't tag the developer.) For what it's worth, I think the existing documentation page for
developer=*is a lot better written than this proposal. It has clear language explaining the distinction betweendeveloper=*andbuilder=*and encouraging the mapper to apply the tag to a wholelanduse=residentialinstead of each individual house within. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 17:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. per ZeLonewolf. While sometimes signed and verifiable on the ground it typically is not. While real estate developers very frequently display signs during and soon after construction to advertise their project, it is far less true for residential areas built 5, 15 or 50 or 150 years ago. This proposal gives false dichotomy of "never verifiable" and "no problems with verifiability". This page also fails to give advice that it should not be mapped if unverifiable by survey (maybe only ground survey?). --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --mnalis (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. As mentionned, if
architect=*,builder=*,engineer=*, anddeveloper=*are used (or even approved) I don't see a problem with this one either --Lejun (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. This data is so rare that I don't see the point of it. But if others see a point, then I'll abstain. Cyrille37 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. If actual developer isn't known, this tag shouldn't be used, otherwise it is pretty verifiable (the photo is example that), so no fundamental problem with verifiability. Something B (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. type as in developer:type is a meaningless suffix Marc marc (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The entire "Complementary tags" section is just overengineering. That data belongs to wikidata and the building should just refer to that. It's rarely easily verifiable after construction and IMO doesn't belong into OSM anyway. However, people are tagging it, so I can live with `developer` with a human readable text. Standardise what's there and don't complicate it further. When `architect` was approved, we didn't have wikidata. --Jofban (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I have given my reasons on the discussion forum--Kasa kai (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Timmy_Tesseract (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. While I do agree that this data is helpful in some fashion, I find it highly unlikely someone would actually want to know that info, let alone if anybody in the editing history knew who the developer was. I believe it's better to have the operator tag stay after the building/project is completed. --Mewhenthe (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I was originally using ref:developer to tag the different developers for the massive number of new estates being built in my town, which I am mapping, as local data consumers involved with the sales had got in touch as they wanted to colour-discriminate the different developers on their QGIS maps generated using OSM data. This tag makes more sense, though, to the point I've already been through and updated all my tagging. --John Grubb (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I do not think company structures belong in a geospatial database. If these developers turn into operators once completed, then we can use the
operatortag for this. If there is a sign present on the construction site, we can useinscriptionto capture what it saids more accurately. I also share the concern about formalizing more wikipedia subkeys versus keeping that information linked to Wikidata. As far as on-the-ground, I think it is quite clear that the developer is not on-the-ground. Perhaps OpenHistoricalMap would be interested in the ownership of the plot over time, but to me in OSM this feels much closer to saying "A celebrity once ate here, let's tag it" than "This building was opening in [year]." --GA Kevin (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I think that buildings, constructions, or amenities of the size and/or importance for an information about the developer could have their own Wikidata entry. This would allow the information to be stored in the database there (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P6237). --Chris2map (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The developer of a project is not geographically relevant once the project is completed and handed over to the final owner(s). If that developer continues to own/operate the project, we can use
owner=*oroperator=*instead. The same tags can be used on a construction site as well. --Andrewth1 (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. As one of the pioneer users of
developer=*anddeveloper:wikidata=*in my mapping area, this data could be used as an additional search key similar to how Nominatim utilizesbrand=*today. - I approve this proposal. I'd love to see this formally approved, and have every real estate development tagged as such to: ⑴ avoid complicating names with workarounds for differing ways to refer to a development, and ⑵ allow further OSM data use for corporate sales purposes. —UndueMarmot (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)