Talk:Proposed features/general contractor

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Kind of services

I believe the tag is fine for the specific scope when there is a general contractor, but there is a potential problem because the tag is not defined and it seems to be "a general tag for who builds a building". The term "general_contractor" is quite specific in meaning and relating to a certain, defined role. Please make people aware about this, and that not everytime the mentioned companies (from your examples) are involved, these companies are providing general contracting services. E.g. have a look here on the website of one of your examples for some other possibilities (obviously also a mix can occur, and this is not a complete list of all possible services): [1].

In the process of creating a building or structure there will not only be general contractors (and there is no need for them, it is just one possible form, among others, of organizing the execution of construction works), there can also be developers, general planners, general transferees, project controllers, project management (usually on behalf of the execution and on behalf of the client), project management just for technical questions and just for financial questions and just for contractual questions, etc. plus any mix of competences, sub-projects, sub-contracts, etc. Basically, it should be clear that the general contractor tag is fine for general contractors, but should not be used in general for anyone involved in some part of the organization of the construction of a building. Please make this very clear. Often you need some insight into the specific project and contractual situation to fully understand how it is organized, although some general idea can usually be developped by looking at the construction sign.

An alternative to a general contractor would be single assignment, i.e. different companies for every kind of work. Does the proposal of the general contractor term imply we also should or could map the company which has dug the hole for the foundations, built the shell, put the roof tiles, put the facades, or even leased the fence during construction or guarded the construction site? Are we going to store to which landfill the waste will be transported? Who was the electrical engineer, who was responsible for safety during construction? Who put the floor tiles? This list can become almost infinite... --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There are traditionally three parties involved with the construction of a building or structure: the owner, architect, and contractor. Similarly to several consulting engineers working under the architect, construction usually involves several subcontractors. The intent of this feature is the flush out the collection of the three most typical parties responsible for the built environment. It is very common to use a general contractor for construction so the owner can have a single source of accountability for the work. Cbbaze talk
Traditionally, there are neither architects nor contractors involved in the construction of a house, it is done by the owner and his family. ;-) Whose traditions are you talking about? Usually there is the architect, the builder (owner or representative of owner), other planners like the structural or the electricity (or heating/cooling, water, facade specialist, etc.) engineer (coordinated by the architect but "traditionally" commissioned by the builder) and the companies that build the building. You will have different kind of companies for different kind of works (earth / digging, structure in concrete or masonry or steel or wood, roofer, facade / windows / doors, raw installations (electricity / water / gas, usually different companies), floor screed, and finishes like plastering / panels / tiles / painter, kitchen, bathroom, electricity finishes, etc.). The idea to have a general contractor who does all of this is not "traditional", at least not around here. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


How it can be verified after building was constructed? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In the US, it can be verified by local and state records. It is illegal to build buildings without a contractor's licence, and the contractor of record will be listed on the building permit.


Is the (main)contractor of a building a geoinformation? I don't think so. The contractor is also less important as no other rights like copyright / rights of photography depends on this.

It becomes geoinformation if you add it to OSM. Following your argument, ultimately only node coordinates would be geoinformation, or I am misguided? --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarify definition and application

Can you please clarify when this tag should be applied (if there is/was a general contractor involved) and also how to deal with several general contractors (e.g. the builder changes general contrator during construction phase), and when it should not be applied (if there isn't a general contractor involved), i.e. make it clear that this is a specific model of building things, not a generic scheme applying to all built things. Also I'd think the current definition is too short, it doesn't actually say what a general contractor is. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)