Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
How about et al.? On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:58:35 Alex Barth wrote: Paul - sorry, yeah. Not talking to ODC but I'll make sure to run by LWG. On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark Thanks for weighing in everyone. Based on the discussion, here are the immediate adjustments I'm seeing shaking out from this thread: 1. Don't mandate, but recommend/offer attribution mark 2. Make it clear that /copyright is scrollable 3. Let's do an alt text to make sure we're on Google's radar ;) 4. Make sure mark is easy to embed A 5th point was that it wasn't clear that the mark complies with ODbL 4.3. Have you sought the opinion of the ODC as to what they intended by that section? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Thanks for weighing in everyone. Based on the discussion, here are the immediate adjustments I'm seeing shaking out from this thread: 1. Don't mandate, but recommend/offer attribution mark 2. Make it clear that /copyright is scrollable 3. Let's do an alt text to make sure we're on Google's radar ;) 4. Make sure mark is easy to embed The feedback on the proposed direction here has been largely positive, so I'd like to take further work to the pull request on GitHub [1]. John Firebaugh and I are ready to work with Tom Hughes and others to get this change to a point where it's good to merge into osm.org. [1] https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/180 There are two topics that I'd like to discuss on this thread though: (1) The BY in BY OSM Several arguments where made that 'by' might be misleading. So, Saman and I have been going through alternatives to BY before too, namely: - WITH - no addition at all - DATA BY - and others We kept circling back to BY as it's just really short and sticky and works in the image and it signals attribution. As a mark on a map we're operating on a 15,000 feet level, the distinction between these predicates is fuzzy at best. Even if we go explicit and say Powered by OSM it would still look to most like the entire map is just made by OpenStreetMap. Our job to explain OpenStreetMap is when a visitor clicks through, this is where we show OpenStreetMap powers map data on hundreds of web and mobile apps [2] or [INSERT MAP USER HERE] uses maps powered by data from OpenStreetMap [3]. [2] http://osmlab.github.io/attribution-mark/copyright/ [3] http://osmlab.github.io/attribution-mark/copyright/?name=Stamenimage=tile.stamen.com/watercolor/10/164/396.jpgvendor=StamenvendorURL=maps.stamen.com (2) Do no image mark at all There's a really compelling reason to do a visual mark: it has character and it's pretty which in turn allows us to attach meaning: Community and open data. The [BY OSM] image mark is something we can make *a thing*, use in campaigns, print on T-shirts, make badges for our web sites, add to data visualizations and reference in blog posts as a symbol of this is open data, sourced by a community of mappers. This is not possible with (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. That said, against the initial proposal I think we can't require an image mark or introduce a fuzzy use unless not possible but should just offer it as an alternative to (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: Hello everyone - I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark. This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with adjustments based on feedback on the original thread. Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more attention to OpenStreetMap wherever it's used by introducing a visually compelling, linked symbol for placement on OSM-based works and by explaining OpenStreetMap better at the place where this symbol links to. Looking forward to your feedback. I'll also be reaching out to corresponding working groups and OSMF to see how we can move this forward. Concretely, this RFC proposes 1. Replace current credit © OpenStreetMap Contributors with a visual mark where possible 2. Update `openstreetmap.org/copyright`http://openstreetmap.org/copyrightto explain better OSM, to invite visitors to join and to allow creators of derivative work to link back to their sites. The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes: 1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark' 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` 4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used. Please read up on all details on the newly created RFC page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark Also take a look at the repository containing artwork and code: https://github.com/osmlab/attribution-mark Alex -- [1] Initial RFC http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065784.html [2] Feedback summary http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065860.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
2013/5/1 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com (1) The BY in BY OSM Several arguments where made that 'by' might be misleading. So, Saman and I have been going through alternatives to BY before too, namely: - WITH - no addition at all - DATA BY - and others actually there is a different attribution requirement (already now) depending on you using OSM cartography (i.e. the mapnik map style and OSM data) or just the data (with your own style), so whether data by or another attribution makes more sense depends also which part of OSM you use in your map. cheers, Martin -- Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.) Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18 00145 Roma |I|I|I|I|I|I|I|I| Italia N41.851, E12.4824 tel1: +39 06.916508070 tel2: +49 30 868708638 mobil: +39 392 3114712 mobil: +49 1577 7793740 m...@koppenhoefer.com http://www.koppenhoefer.com Hinweis: Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei der manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien die übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies zu entschuldigen. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@koppenhoefer.com Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Paul - sorry, yeah. Not talking to ODC but I'll make sure to run by LWG. On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark Thanks for weighing in everyone. Based on the discussion, here are the immediate adjustments I'm seeing shaking out from this thread: 1. Don't mandate, but recommend/offer attribution mark 2. Make it clear that /copyright is scrollable 3. Let's do an alt text to make sure we're on Google's radar ;) 4. Make sure mark is easy to embed A 5th point was that it wasn't clear that the mark complies with ODbL 4.3. Have you sought the opinion of the ODC as to what they intended by that section? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Sorry to jump in only so briefly, but a small point struck me reading this discussion: I don't accept that an image is a beneficial replacement for the text. When I say beneficial, I mean beneficial to OpenStreetMap. As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It seems a big contradictory to assert that a visual identifier for a mapping project is a poor idea. Otherwise, as I contributor I second Mikel about being proud to have my work represented as suggested by Alex. On 4/26/13, Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi I don't think there's much existing agreement on how we attribute, just standard practice. I as a contributor never asserted how things should be attributed. For instance, looking at the FAQ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F Our requested attribution is © OpenStreetMap contributors. That says requested attribution. There's nothing required? Because OpenStreetMap is its contributors, you may omit the word contributors if space is limited. Indeed. I think we're overvaluing text in the standard practice. No one reads the messy text at the bottom of maps, except for map developers. Something recognizable visually, without reading, is going to do a lot more for awareness of OpenStreetMap then some text that just gets ignored. For this contributor, I would be proud to have my work credited by by OSM, or with OSM. Copyright is there legally, on the copyright page. We are more than copyright, we are community. And the newly designed page is a great improvement, great welcome, to not only explain the legalities, but what OSM is about ... people who care about data. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com To: Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com Cc: Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark) On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, can you explain a little more of why you think that the idea is bad for OSM? Removing OpenStreetMap from the attribution requirement is bad for OpenStreetMap. It is good for OpenStreetMap that people who benefit from the use of OpenStreetMap be informed that it is OpenStreetMap from which they are gaining a benefit. Removing Contributors from the attribution requirement is bad for OpenStreetMap. Data contributors are the very core of the project. They create and improve the data from which we all benefit. The contributors portion of the attribution requirement was part of the discussion in the license change process. Contributors asserted that a simple copyright OpenStreetMap was not enough. The OpenStreetMap data contributors deserve recognition on produced works. The trade off that I am seeing here is reducing the readable/indexable/searchable text Reducing ? The image does not reduce the text the image eliminates the text. Specifically, the image eliminates every text character entity. The image eliminates © OpenStreetMap Contributors or 25 letters and copyright symbol. If you stretch, really really far, and try to accept that an image of a letter is as good as a letter, then the image eliminates © pen treet ap Contributors. In that tortured version of reality, the image eliminates 22 letters of 25 and the only explicit copyright symbol. In exchange, the letters by are added, which suggest, at best, something less than copyright. in exchange for the beginnings of a visual identifier, By visual identifier, you mean image, right? :-) I don't accept that an image is a beneficial replacement for the text. When I say beneficial, I mean beneficial to OpenStreetMap. and a direct link to a strategic copyright page. There is already a copyright page. The link to the copyright page is already a requirement. In summary, the idea of a visual mark or image to replace the required attribution statement is harmful to OpenStreetMap. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Hi Robert. Am 26.04.2013 09:44, schrieb Robert Banick: As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It seems a big contradictory to assert that a visual identifier for a mapping project is a poor idea. But OSM is not (only) a cartoGRAPHIC project, it's a geoDATA project. One - and by far not the only - use case for that geodata is the graphics - be it 2D, 3D or even Virtual Reality. And I didn't understand anybody in this discussion as that: Not the visual identifier as it is a poor idea, but the REPLACEMENT of the text by this visual identifier is. If the whole point of OSM would be visual, we would paint collaboratively on a big canvas. Instead we put data in a database, state where streets are intersecting and where they cross without being connected using a bridge or a tunnel. That's why routing, geocoding and much more is possible with OSM. Reducing that to a visual project is a common error, but it's not correct. regards Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Mike wrote I think the root of this issue is lack of strong OpenStreetMap brand, or, at least, lack of visual identity of the brand. Current OSM logo lacks necessary properties of good brand visual identification, and thus it is not used much. The most obvious problem is it is not usable - you cannot use it as small mark in corner of the map as when resized to needed small resolution image it becomes unreadable. Is that really the case? At least for the typical web map I am not sure I'd agree that the current logo is a problem. At the same size as the Google or Bing logo is on their maps (which seems to be perfectly acceptable to a wide majority of users), the standard OSM logo seems just fine. Even the extended text based log ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm_linkage.png ) seems fine at the typical size of webmap attribution logos. Obviously, it is not workable in all cases. E.g. on a small mobile screen it would use up to much screen real estate, but that is probably true for any significant graphical logo. There the attribution could e.g. be on a separate about screen, or in textual form, which is appropriate for the medium. But the majority of cases would imho be fine with the current logo(s). Therefore my preference would be to recommend people to use the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm_linkage.png logo were possible and otherwise fall back to the (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-updated-OSM-Attribution-Mark-was-contributor-mark-tp5758043p5758615.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Hi, On 04/26/2013 09:44 AM, Robert Banick wrote: As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? Certainly not. But you should have known that - I have read your recent tweets and you talk about using the iD editor in training people to contribute to OSM. There would not be any reason to use something as complex as a map editor if the point was only visual! If you train people how to map then you will tell them things like be careful to properly link roads and not just place nodes near each other - something that would be irrelevant if we were just painting a nice map. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On 26/04/13 08:44, Robert Banick wrote: As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It seems a big contradictory to assert that a visual identifier for a mapping project is a poor idea. Well there's your first problem - it isn't (primarily) a cartographic project at all. It's a data project. The goal is to collect data describing the world. The pretty pictures are just one useful way of visualising that data. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
2013/4/26 Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com Therefore my preference would be to recommend people to use the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm_linkage.png logo were possible and otherwise fall back to the (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL that logo is old, it is based on the version we used prior to 29 April 2011. The current logo is this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=File:Public-images-osm_logo.svgpage=1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
One or two points: - OSM abbreviation is not so clear as OpenStreetMap and not so popular yet that everyone will understand immediately what it is but, by chance, osm.org is pointing to the right site (so, displaying OSM instead of OpenStreetMap is not that bad). - there is no legal obligation to display the attribution on slippy maps using OSM. We have seen plenty of examples where OSM is attributed in some obscure legal or copyright page you never read if you are not searching for it. And this complies with the license. So, OpenStreetMap contributors is surely the best solution but this mark is surely better than nothing ! I would even appreciate if the license could be changed and define the attribution in text or mark as mandatory on maps. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
And I didn't understand anybody in this discussion as that: Not the visual identifier as it is a poor idea, but the REPLACEMENT of the text by this visual identifier is. ... Reducing that to a visual project is a common error, but it's not correct. I've seen a few responses that because OSM is about data, then attribution on maps should be in text. One does not follow another. © OpenStreetMap contributors doesn't do anything to explain that notion. It's a separate issue from a visual identifier for the use of OSM data on a slippy map. Even if OpenStreetMap were well known, the simple fact is that no one reads the copyright text at the bottom of any map, it's noise and clutter that we filter out (unless we're map geeks). http://osmlab.github.io/attribution-mark/copyright/ (which btw now has a bit of OSM.org chrome on it, nice) This page does a good job at communicating the nature of OSM. Most folks aren't going to come onto the talk@ list, and be told the difference in 3 different replies. Our web presence just isn't doing a good job at communication. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:12 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark) Hi Robert. Am 26.04.2013 09:44, schrieb Robert Banick: As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It seems a big contradictory to assert that a visual identifier for a mapping project is a poor idea. But OSM is not (only) a cartoGRAPHIC project, it's a geoDATA project. One - and by far not the only - use case for that geodata is the graphics - be it 2D, 3D or even Virtual Reality. And I didn't understand anybody in this discussion as that: Not the visual identifier as it is a poor idea, but the REPLACEMENT of the text by this visual identifier is. If the whole point of OSM would be visual, we would paint collaboratively on a big canvas. Instead we put data in a database, state where streets are intersecting and where they cross without being connected using a bridge or a tunnel. That's why routing, geocoding and much more is possible with OSM. Reducing that to a visual project is a common error, but it's not correct. regards Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On 24.04.13. 16:48, Liz Barry wrote: I quickly put the logo side by side with the attribution mark. I feel it is clearly of the same family, linked by 1. the shape of the folded map 2. the color grey in the magnifying glass handle i uploaded the JPG to twitter -- https://twitter.com/lizbarry/status/327071379105120257 What do you think? I disagree. Branding is serious issue. Although suggested attribution mark fulfills usability requirements it is not alike current OSM log and surely is not suitable for brand logo replacement. I also do not recommend using any new attribution mark before brand is established. That would just make a confusion. It is better to leave things as they are until visual identity of the OpenStreetMap brand is established. If there will be a change it should start with branding. When that is done, and done well, brand logo would surely do the job as attribution mark. One more thing, brand logo does not have to have a meaning (like looking as map and magnifying glass). Brand logo may be meaningless as such but get its meaning from brand itself. What is most important for a brand log is to be easily recognized as such and usable in all situations. My guess is that for OpenStreetMap it is best to play with full name and OSM as base for a logo than using detailed graphical elements such are map and magnifying glass for simple reason - details cannot survive low resolution. And finally, creating logo should be left to people who know how to do it, and who are able to offer ideas that are applicable. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On 26.04.13. 10:19, Kai Krueger wrote: Current OSM logo lacks necessary properties of good brand visual identification, and thus it is not used much. The most obvious problem is it is not usable - you cannot use it as small mark in corner of the map as when resized to needed small resolution image it becomes unreadable. Is that really the case? At least for the typical web map I am not sure I'd agree that the current logo is a problem. At the same size as the Google or Bing logo is on their maps (which seems to be perfectly acceptable to a wide majority of users), the standard OSM logo seems just fine. Even the extended text based log ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm_linkage.png ) seems fine at the typical size of webmap attribution logos. Obviously, it is not workable in all cases. E.g. on a small mobile screen it would use up to much screen real estate, but that is probably true for any significant graphical logo. There the attribution could e.g. be on a separate about screen, or in textual form, which is appropriate for the medium. But the majority of cases would imho be fine with the current logo(s). Therefore my preference would be to recommend people to use the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm_linkage.png logo were possible and otherwise fall back to the (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL I agree with you in all counts except that suggested logo is suitable. It is too big, it has to many details and too many colors. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
dieterdreist wrote that logo is old, it is based on the version we used prior to 29 April 2011. The current logo is this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=File:Public-images-osm_logo.svgpage=1 The logo you linked to replaced the logo http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Mag_map-120x120.png . The logo I linked to has always been as an alternative and contains the words OpenStreetMap in it, which is why it is imho currently best suited for attribution. One probably should update it though, to reflect the changes in the magnifying lens from the old to new logo. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-updated-OSM-Attribution-Mark-was-contributor-mark-tp5758043p5758700.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Paul, that sounds like a fair point, if I'm understanding correctly. Alex, would it be fair to say that this is more of a recommended alternative, for all the reasons we've stated? Richard, can you explain a little more of why you think that the idea is bad for OSM? The trade off that I am seeing here is reducing the readable/indexable/searchable text in exchange for the beginnings of a visual identifier, and a direct link to a strategic copyright page. With regards to rebranding, I couldn't agree more that it's no small task. However, I'm not sure why we would lose customer goodwill. While the two are certainly linked, it might not be a bad idea for us to start another thread on the topic of an overall OSM rebranding, just so that we don't derail this discussion here. Loving all of this input, everyone! On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: The example notice for OdBL contents is “Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL).” This will *always* be acceptable as it is explicitly stated as meeting the requirements of 4.3. I can’t see any legal justification in the ODbL for allowing a mark or the example notice, but not something between. ** ** Have you passed any of these ideas by other publishers of ODbL data or the ODC lists? ** ** *From:* Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2013 5:40 AM *To:* Talk *Subject:* [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark) ** ** 4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used.* *** ** ** ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Btw, /indexable/searchable text tradeoff ... is OpenStreetMap in javascript written attribution actually indexed? If it is, wouldn't alt text work just as well, removing the notion of trade off? * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com To: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com Cc: Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark) Paul, that sounds like a fair point, if I'm understanding correctly. Alex, would it be fair to say that this is more of a recommended alternative, for all the reasons we've stated? Richard, can you explain a little more of why you think that the idea is bad for OSM? The trade off that I am seeing here is reducing the readable/indexable/searchable text in exchange for the beginnings of a visual identifier, and a direct link to a strategic copyright page. With regards to rebranding, I couldn't agree more that it's no small task. However, I'm not sure why we would lose customer goodwill. While the two are certainly linked, it might not be a bad idea for us to start another thread on the topic of an overall OSM rebranding, just so that we don't derail this discussion here. Loving all of this input, everyone! On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: The example notice for OdBL contents is “Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL).” This will always be acceptable as it is explicitly stated as meeting the requirements of 4.3. I can’t see any legal justification in the ODbL for allowing a mark or the example notice, but not something between. Have you passed any of these ideas by other publishers of ODbL data or the ODC lists? From:Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 5:40 AM To: Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark) 4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Paul - On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: I can’t see any legal justification in the ODbL for allowing a mark or the example notice, but not something between. Not sure I follow. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
If we went ahead with this we would be saying that “Contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL)” is acceptable, an image that says “By OSM” is acceptable, but “© OpenStreetMap” is only acceptable if “By OSM” cannot be used. To me this seems to be insupportable by the license. From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:08 PM To: Paul Norman Cc: Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark) Paul - On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: I can’t see any legal justification in the ODbL for allowing a mark or the example notice, but not something between. Not sure I follow. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, can you explain a little more of why you think that the idea is bad for OSM? Removing OpenStreetMap from the attribution requirement is bad for OpenStreetMap. It is good for OpenStreetMap that people who benefit from the use of OpenStreetMap be informed that it is OpenStreetMap from which they are gaining a benefit. Removing Contributors from the attribution requirement is bad for OpenStreetMap. Data contributors are the very core of the project. They create and improve the data from which we all benefit. The contributors portion of the attribution requirement was part of the discussion in the license change process. Contributors asserted that a simple copyright OpenStreetMap was not enough. The OpenStreetMap data contributors deserve recognition on produced works. The trade off that I am seeing here is reducing the readable/indexable/searchable text Reducing ? The image does not reduce the text the image eliminates the text. Specifically, the image eliminates every text character entity. The image eliminates © OpenStreetMap Contributors or 25 letters and copyright symbol. If you stretch, really really far, and try to accept that an image of a letter is as good as a letter, then the image eliminates © pen treet ap Contributors. In that tortured version of reality, the image eliminates 22 letters of 25 and the only explicit copyright symbol. In exchange, the letters by are added, which suggest, at best, something less than copyright. in exchange for the beginnings of a visual identifier, By visual identifier, you mean image, right? :-) I don't accept that an image is a beneficial replacement for the text. When I say beneficial, I mean beneficial to OpenStreetMap. and a direct link to a strategic copyright page. There is already a copyright page. The link to the copyright page is already a requirement. In summary, the idea of a visual mark or image to replace the required attribution statement is harmful to OpenStreetMap. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Hi I don't think there's much existing agreement on how we attribute, just standard practice. I as a contributor never asserted how things should be attributed. For instance, looking at the FAQ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F Our requested attribution is © OpenStreetMap contributors. That says requested attribution. There's nothing required? Because OpenStreetMap is its contributors, you may omit the word contributors if space is limited. Indeed. I think we're overvaluing text in the standard practice. No one reads the messy text at the bottom of maps, except for map developers. Something recognizable visually, without reading, is going to do a lot more for awareness of OpenStreetMap then some text that just gets ignored. For this contributor, I would be proud to have my work credited by by OSM, or with OSM. Copyright is there legally, on the copyright page. We are more than copyright, we are community. And the newly designed page is a great improvement, great welcome, to not only explain the legalities, but what OSM is about ... people who care about data. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com To: Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com Cc: Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark) On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, can you explain a little more of why you think that the idea is bad for OSM? Removing OpenStreetMap from the attribution requirement is bad for OpenStreetMap. It is good for OpenStreetMap that people who benefit from the use of OpenStreetMap be informed that it is OpenStreetMap from which they are gaining a benefit. Removing Contributors from the attribution requirement is bad for OpenStreetMap. Data contributors are the very core of the project. They create and improve the data from which we all benefit. The contributors portion of the attribution requirement was part of the discussion in the license change process. Contributors asserted that a simple copyright OpenStreetMap was not enough. The OpenStreetMap data contributors deserve recognition on produced works. The trade off that I am seeing here is reducing the readable/indexable/searchable text Reducing ? The image does not reduce the text the image eliminates the text. Specifically, the image eliminates every text character entity. The image eliminates © OpenStreetMap Contributors or 25 letters and copyright symbol. If you stretch, really really far, and try to accept that an image of a letter is as good as a letter, then the image eliminates © pen treet ap Contributors. In that tortured version of reality, the image eliminates 22 letters of 25 and the only explicit copyright symbol. In exchange, the letters by are added, which suggest, at best, something less than copyright. in exchange for the beginnings of a visual identifier, By visual identifier, you mean image, right? :-) I don't accept that an image is a beneficial replacement for the text. When I say beneficial, I mean beneficial to OpenStreetMap. and a direct link to a strategic copyright page. There is already a copyright page. The link to the copyright page is already a requirement. In summary, the idea of a visual mark or image to replace the required attribution statement is harmful to OpenStreetMap. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:40:13 -0400 From: Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com To: Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark) Message-ID: cabxuzdsnybv7e8qehyahmpao4ojyzsimzhv+bsgg1b9eh-r...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hello everyone - I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark. Just keep walking, persistence paid off. That's what we learned at SotM Japan. ;) This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with adjustments based on feedback on the original thread. Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more attention to OpenStreetMap wherever it's used by introducing a visually compelling, linked symbol for placement on OSM-based works and by explaining OpenStreetMap better at the place where this symbol links to. Looking forward to your feedback. I'll also be reaching out to corresponding working groups and OSMF to see how we can move this forward. Concretely, this RFC proposes 1. Replace current credit ? OpenStreetMap Contributors with a visual mark where possible 2. Update `openstreetmap.org/copyright` to explain better OSM, to invite visitors to join and to allow creators of derivative work to link back to their sites. The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes: 1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark' 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM Nice one. The new mark makes symbolizes a map and the OSM very clearly. I like. 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. I like the image idea because it shows people having fun while mapping. Instead of the mostly boring legal part. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` For all non-web citizens: It could be hard to guess, that there is more text below the fold. It might be clever to put the text a bit more to the center to show at at least the beginning lines of the text. Or a bouncing icons shouting: SCROLL :) 4. The mark is an alternative to ? OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, ? OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used. To spread the whole thing quickly and convieniently it might be a good idea to provide OL.js, Leaflet.js and mapbox.hs plugins. Please read up on all details on the newly created RFC page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark Also take a look at the repository containing artwork and code: https://github.com/osmlab/attribution-mark Thx for your work, we at wheelmap are definitively on it. Christoph ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
I love where this is headed. As a developer that builds a business application making use of OSM as a base layer, we have hundreds of users all over the world that need high-quality base layer data for reference when conducting fieldwork, many of them in GIS / mapping departments with mapping expertise. I would venture to say that most of them don't have exposure to OpenStreetMap, but would jump at the opportunity to be able to make corrections to the base layer they're using every day. I love the fact that our business application can drive more contribution to OSM. The new graphic is a marked improvement over the previous one, in my opinion, and still stays unobtrusive enough not to cover much of the map. And I agree with Christoph that it's nice to see actual people out mapping, while maintaining the text of today's copyright page. Great work! Cheers, Coleman On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.commailto:a...@mapbox.com wrote: Hello everyone - I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark. This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with adjustments based on feedback on the original thread. Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more attention to OpenStreetMap wherever it's used by introducing a visually compelling, linked symbol for placement on OSM-based works and by explaining OpenStreetMap better at the place where this symbol links to. Looking forward to your feedback. I'll also be reaching out to corresponding working groups and OSMF to see how we can move this forward. Concretely, this RFC proposes 1. Replace current credit © OpenStreetMap Contributors with a visual mark where possible 2. Update `openstreetmap.org/copyright`http://openstreetmap.org/copyright` to explain better OSM, to invite visitors to join and to allow creators of derivative work to link back to their sites. The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes: 1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark' 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` 4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used. Please read up on all details on the newly created RFC page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark Also take a look at the repository containing artwork and code: https://github.com/osmlab/attribution-mark Alex -- [1] Initial RFC http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065784.html [2] Feedback summary http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065860.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
I think the root of this issue is lack of strong OpenStreetMap brand, or, at least, lack of visual identity of the brand. Current OSM logo lacks necessary properties of good brand visual identification, and thus it is not used much. The most obvious problem is it is not usable - you cannot use it as small mark in corner of the map as when resized to needed small resolution image it becomes unreadable. What should be done first is establishing good visual identity for OpenStreetMap, primarily through logo (both long 'OpenStreetMap' and short 'OSM' version) with special attention for usability - meaning that we should be able to put it everywhere and brand would be recognizable. When that is done, problem with attribution mark is almost solved: logo should be used as visual mark. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
The proposed mark is very well suited as a replacement. It is simple, minimalistic, and works well on a variety of backgrounds. +1 On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Mike mike.cuttl...@gmail.com wrote: I think the root of this issue is lack of strong OpenStreetMap brand, or, at least, lack of visual identity of the brand. Current OSM logo lacks necessary properties of good brand visual identification, and thus it is not used much. The most obvious problem is it is not usable - you cannot use it as small mark in corner of the map as when resized to needed small resolution image it becomes unreadable. What should be done first is establishing good visual identity for OpenStreetMap, primarily through logo (both long 'OpenStreetMap' and short 'OSM' version) with special attention for usability - meaning that we should be able to put it everywhere and brand would be recognizable. When that is done, problem with attribution mark is almost solved: logo should be used as visual mark. __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John Novak 585-OLD-TOPOS (585-653-8676) http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnanovak/ OSM ID:oldtopos OSM Heat Map: http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/?oldtopos OSM Edit Stats:http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?oldtopos ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
John, On 04/24/2013 03:56 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote: The proposed mark is very well suited as a replacement. It is simple, minimalistic, and works well on a variety of backgrounds. You wrote the above as a +1 to a statement from Mike Cuttler that said What should be done first is establishing good visual identity for OpenStreetMap, primarily through logo (both long 'OpenStreetMap' and short 'OSM' version) with special attention for usability - meaning that we should be able to put it everywhere and brand would be recognizable. Are you therefore saying that what has been designed as an attribution mark should be our new logo, or are you saying that there does not have to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
+1 to Alex's original post -- the new attribution mark is well designed and versatile for its purposes. The shape of the folded map links the attribution mark with our logo. +1 spiffed up copyright page BUT the proportion of image to information above the fold still needs finetuning, as well as the exact text. On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: John, On 04/24/2013 03:56 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote: The proposed mark is very well suited as a replacement. It is simple, minimalistic, and works well on a variety of backgrounds. You wrote the above as a +1 to a statement from Mike Cuttler that said What should be done first is establishing good visual identity for OpenStreetMap, primarily through logo (both long 'OpenStreetMap' and short 'OSM' version) with special attention for usability - meaning that we should be able to put it everywhere and brand would be recognizable. Are you therefore saying that what has been designed as an attribution mark should be our new logo, or are you saying that there does not have to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- @lizbarry http://twitter.com/lizbarry ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On 24/04/2013 16:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: Are you therefore saying that what has been designed as an attribution mark should be our new logo, or are you saying that there does not have to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark? Let me add the following alternative : there has to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark, in order to maintain the visual consistency of the brand - whatever the chosen design. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's points about the current branding around the project. However, as there has been generally positive feedback for the design of this attribution mark, would it make sense to move forward with using the attribution mark (since it addresses an immediate problem) and use that as a jumping off point for rebranding OSM? Rebranding is no small task, and it seems like it would be a shame to hold off on going ahead with what (I'm hearing) most folks think is a good initiative so that we can complete a rebranding initiative first. On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: On 24/04/2013 16:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: Are you therefore saying that what has been designed as an attribution mark should be our new logo, or are you saying that there does not have to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark? Let me add the following alternative : there has to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark, in order to maintain the visual consistency of the brand - whatever the chosen design. __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
I quickly put the logo side by side with the attribution mark. I feel it is clearly of the same family, linked by 1. the shape of the folded map 2. the color grey in the magnifying glass handle i uploaded the JPG to twitter -- https://twitter.com/lizbarry/status/327071379105120257 What do you think? On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote: I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's points about the current branding around the project. However, as there has been generally positive feedback for the design of this attribution mark, would it make sense to move forward with using the attribution mark (since it addresses an immediate problem) and use that as a jumping off point for rebranding OSM? Rebranding is no small task, and it seems like it would be a shame to hold off on going ahead with what (I'm hearing) most folks think is a good initiative so that we can complete a rebranding initiative first. On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.orgwrote: On 24/04/2013 16:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: Are you therefore saying that what has been designed as an attribution mark should be our new logo, or are you saying that there does not have to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark? Let me add the following alternative : there has to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark, in order to maintain the visual consistency of the brand - whatever the chosen design. __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- @lizbarry http://twitter.com/lizbarry ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Before we get in to too much bike shedding: the CWG (as essentially our marketing arm) has been asking for more help for a long time. Net we have had less and less volunteers there over time. The CWG would clearly be the place to engage in such a discussion. I'm not sure that re-branding would be the correct term, since, as has been noted, I don't believe we haven't ever really undertook a conscious overall branding exercise (there have been multiple aborted attempts to have a new logo in the past though). Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
I support moving forward as stated by Kathleen. It is also an opportunity to explore rebranding; and it's desirability; in more detail as a separate discussion. Best, On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote: I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's points about the current branding around the project. However, as there has been generally positive feedback for the design of this attribution mark, would it make sense to move forward with using the attribution mark (since it addresses an immediate problem) and use that as a jumping off point for rebranding OSM? Rebranding is no small task, and it seems like it would be a shame to hold off on going ahead with what (I'm hearing) most folks think is a good initiative so that we can complete a rebranding initiative first. On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.orgwrote: On 24/04/2013 16:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: Are you therefore saying that what has been designed as an attribution mark should be our new logo, or are you saying that there does not have to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark? Let me add the following alternative : there has to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark, in order to maintain the visual consistency of the brand - whatever the chosen design. __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John Novak 585-OLD-TOPOS (585-653-8676) http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnanovak/ OSM ID:oldtopos OSM Heat Map: http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/?oldtopos OSM Edit Stats:http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?oldtopos ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Both the new mark and the copyright page look very slick. Clean, friendly, inviting. Great work! -- Marc Regan Cofounder, Mapkin (http://mapkin.co) On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Kathleen Danielson wrote: However, as there has been generally positive feedback for the design of this attribution mark, would it make sense to move forward with using the attribution mark (since it addresses an immediate problem) Definitely. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that. If you wait for 100% consensus on talk@ you'll never get anything done. And, as ever, stuff can be fine-tuned after initial deployment. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-updated-OSM-Attribution-Mark-was-contributor-mark-tp5758043p5758370.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com (http://Nabble.com). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org (mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: Hello everyone - I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark. Clearly. :-) I think that the idea is bad for OpenStreetMap. The logo is pretty. The logo is pretty and the idea is bad for OpenStreetMap. At the core, the idea of a minimalist attribution mark reduces the prominence of (eliminates) both OpenStreetMap and Contributors and those are both of core importance to OpenStreetMap. I see the idea of replacing readable / searchable / indexable text of the actual name of the project, with a few pixels of magic beans as a fundamentally broken idea. Rebranding is expensive in terms of the volunteer hours it would take to execute, and the legal and incidental costs are not trivial. The biggest cost, of course, is loss of customer goodwill. This doesn't make sense to me. Not at all. Would you change the MapBox logo to the logo you propose for OpenStreetMap attribution? Change the by OSM to by MB and you could have your brand new MB mark. No? Why not? :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
The example notice for OdBL contents is “Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL).” This will always be acceptable as it is explicitly stated as meeting the requirements of 4.3. I can’t see any legal justification in the ODbL for allowing a mark or the example notice, but not something between. Have you passed any of these ideas by other publishers of ODbL data or the ODC lists? From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 5:40 AM To: Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark) 4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Alex Barth wrote: This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Thumbs up. This is really good. I love having Local knowledge in prime position. It'd be good to release Leaflet/OpenLayers plugins to do the attribution. If I were feeling Machiavellian I'd suggest we consider hosting them on our servers (load permitting) so we get an automatic heads-up of who's using OSM... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-updated-OSM-Attribution-Mark-was-contributor-mark-tp5758043p5758183.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Thumbs up. This is really good. I love having Local knowledge in prime position. -1 If the most important information is the local knowledge and community driven, then the page should be renamed as the about the project and not copyright. And are you going to adopt the twitter format for all pages in the future (520px wide) ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: It'd be good to release Leaflet/OpenLayers plugins to do the attribution. If I were feeling Machiavellian I'd suggest we consider hosting them on our servers (load permitting) so we get an automatic heads-up of who's using OSM... +1 -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Looking great. One small suggestion on the /copyright page ... link to OSM signup towards the top as well. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com To: Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 8:40 AM Subject: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark) Hello everyone - I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark. This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with adjustments based on feedback on the original thread. Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more attention to OpenStreetMap wherever it's used by introducing a visually compelling, linked symbol for placement on OSM-based works and by explaining OpenStreetMap better at the place where this symbol links to. Looking forward to your feedback. I'll also be reaching out to corresponding working groups and OSMF to see how we can move this forward. Concretely, this RFC proposes 1. Replace current credit © OpenStreetMap Contributors with a visual mark where possible 2. Update `openstreetmap.org/copyright` to explain better OSM, to invite visitors to join and to allow creators of derivative work to link back to their sites. The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes: 1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark' 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` 4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used. Please read up on all details on the newly created RFC page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark Also take a look at the repository containing artwork and code: https://github.com/osmlab/attribution-mark Alex -- [1] Initial RFC http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065784.html [2] Feedback summary http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065860.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
2013/4/22 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with adjustments based on feedback on the original thread. Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more attention to OpenStreetMap wherever it's used by introducing a visually compelling, linked symbol for placement on OSM-based works and by explaining OpenStreetMap better at the place where this symbol links to. Looking forward to your feedback. I'll also be reaching out to corresponding working groups and OSMF to see how we can move this forward. great work, easily readable/recognizable also in tiny versions, monochrome for easy application and fit on all kinds of backgrounds. The only thing looking slightly strange to me is the cut off B of BY (the Y is fine), but maybe that's just a question of getting used to it. cheers, Martin PS: on a side note I appreciate that you also gave the compasses a try in your process, as before you had tried the hammer it was only consequent ;-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Hi, I like the Attribution Mark, but I think one point is missing: The link to the wiki-contributors-page. Henning ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
The copyright page is now much better than before and IMHO contains the necessary contents. There are a couple of wording issues that are already present in the current version that we should address while we're at it (but that is mainly CWG/OWG turf) but nothing major. I do have a couple of issues with the icon though. First while I'm sure we would like to take credit for everything OSMish, doesn't by OSM imply the wrong thing? What we want to say is I suspect Data by OSM, that naturally would be rather unwiedly. Further there may be a potential (legal) issue with using OSM in that way that I need to discuss with counsel. But all in all a nice step forward. Simon Am 22.04.2013 14:40, schrieb Alex Barth: Hello everyone - I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark. This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with adjustments based on feedback on the original thread. Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more attention to OpenStreetMap wherever it's used by introducing a visually compelling, linked symbol for placement on OSM-based works and by explaining OpenStreetMap better at the place where this symbol links to. Looking forward to your feedback. I'll also be reaching out to corresponding working groups and OSMF to see how we can move this forward. Concretely, this RFC proposes 1. Replace current credit © OpenStreetMap Contributors with a visual mark where possible 2. Update `openstreetmap.org/copyright` http://openstreetmap.org/copyright%60 to explain better OSM, to invite visitors to join and to allow creators of derivative work to link back to their sites. The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes: 1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark' 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` 4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used. Please read up on all details on the newly created RFC page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark Also take a look at the repository containing artwork and code: https://github.com/osmlab/attribution-mark Alex -- [1] Initial RFC http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065784.html [2] Feedback summary http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065860.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
What about “with OSM” instead of “by OSM”? -mike. --- michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: The copyright page is now much better than before and IMHO contains the necessary contents. There are a couple of wording issues that are already present in the current version that we should address while we're at it (but that is mainly CWG/OWG turf) but nothing major. I do have a couple of issues with the icon though. First while I'm sure we would like to take credit for everything OSMish, doesn't by OSM imply the wrong thing? What we want to say is I suspect Data by OSM, that naturally would be rather unwiedly. Further there may be a potential (legal) issue with using OSM in that way that I need to discuss with counsel. But all in all a nice step forward. Simon Am 22.04.2013 14:40, schrieb Alex Barth: Hello everyone - I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark. This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with adjustments based on feedback on the original thread. Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more attention to OpenStreetMap wherever it's used by introducing a visually compelling, linked symbol for placement on OSM-based works and by explaining OpenStreetMap better at the place where this symbol links to. Looking forward to your feedback. I'll also be reaching out to corresponding working groups and OSMF to see how we can move this forward. Concretely, this RFC proposes 1. Replace current credit © OpenStreetMap Contributors with a visual mark where possible 2. Update `openstreetmap.org/copyright` to explain better OSM, to invite visitors to join and to allow creators of derivative work to link back to their sites. The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes: 1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark' 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` 4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used. Please read up on all details on the newly created RFC page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark Also take a look at the repository containing artwork and code: https://github.com/osmlab/attribution-mark Alex -- [1] Initial RFC http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065784.html [2] Feedback summary http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065860.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Agreed. I think that either With OSM or Powered By OSM would explain the relationship a bit better than By OSM which suggests explicit authorship of whatever is displaying the watermark. That might not always be the case. On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com wrote: What about “with OSM” instead of “by OSM”? -mike. --- michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: The copyright page is now much better than before and IMHO contains the necessary contents. There are a couple of wording issues that are already present in the current version that we should address while we're at it (but that is mainly CWG/OWG turf) but nothing major. I do have a couple of issues with the icon though. First while I'm sure we would like to take credit for everything OSMish, doesn't by OSM imply the wrong thing? What we want to say is I suspect Data by OSM, that naturally would be rather unwiedly. Further there may be a potential (legal) issue with using OSM in that way that I need to discuss with counsel. But all in all a nice step forward. Simon Am 22.04.2013 14:40, schrieb Alex Barth: Hello everyone - I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark. This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with adjustments based on feedback on the original thread. Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more attention to OpenStreetMap wherever it's used by introducing a visually compelling, linked symbol for placement on OSM-based works and by explaining OpenStreetMap better at the place where this symbol links to. Looking forward to your feedback. I'll also be reaching out to corresponding working groups and OSMF to see how we can move this forward. Concretely, this RFC proposes 1. Replace current credit © OpenStreetMap Contributors with a visual mark where possible 2. Update `openstreetmap.org/copyright`http://openstreetmap.org/copyright%60to explain better OSM, to invite visitors to join and to allow creators of derivative work to link back to their sites. The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes: 1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark' 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` 4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used. Please read up on all details on the newly created RFC page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark Also take a look at the repository containing artwork and code: https://github.com/osmlab/attribution-mark Alex -- [1] Initial RFC http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065784.html [2] Feedback summary http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065860.html ___ talk mailing listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com wrote: What about “with OSM” instead of “by OSM”? -mike. --- michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: The copyright page is now much better than before and IMHO contains the necessary contents. There are a couple of wording issues that are already present in the current version that we should address while we're at it (but that is mainly CWG/OWG turf) but nothing major. I do have a couple of issues with the icon though. First while I'm sure we would like to take credit for everything OSMish, doesn't by OSM imply the wrong thing? What we want to say is I suspect Data by OSM, that naturally would be rather unwiedly. Further there may be a potential (legal) issue with using OSM in that way that I need to discuss with counsel. But all in all a nice step forward. Simon Am 22.04.2013 14:40, schrieb Alex Barth: Hello everyone - I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark. This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with adjustments based on feedback on the original thread. Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more attention to OpenStreetMap wherever it's used by introducing a visually compelling, linked symbol for placement on OSM-based works and by explaining OpenStreetMap better at the place where this symbol links to. Looking forward to your feedback. I'll also be reaching out to corresponding working groups and OSMF to see how we can move this forward. Concretely, this RFC proposes 1. Replace current credit © OpenStreetMap Contributors with a visual mark where possible 2. Update `openstreetmap.org/copyright` to explain better OSM, to invite visitors to join and to allow creators of derivative work to link back to their sites. The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes: 1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark' 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` 4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used. Please read up on all details on the newly created RFC page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark Also take a look at the repository containing artwork and code: https://github.com/osmlab/attribution-mark Alex -- [1] Initial RFC http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065784.html [2] Feedback summary http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065860.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Or perhaps Data from OSM. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for it is better to think wrongly than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
* Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com [2013-04-22 08:40 -0400]: 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM I like it. Definitely more distinctive and specific to OSM than the hammer icon. 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` I think the new copyright page is very nice looking and presents its data well, but I, personally, still find it a little confusing in that there are very few visual cues that you can scroll down. My first impression (as with the previous copyright page) is that it's just a pretty attribution page that serves merely to write out the word OpenStreetMap. All of the additional information is below the bottom of the page and I didn't find it obvious that there would be anything down there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On 22/04/13 13:40, Alex Barth wrote: The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes: 1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark' 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM The new mark is definitely a distinct improvement - at least now there is some chance of somebody recognising what it is for. 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` I'm afraid the redesigned /copyright page still has all the same problems as the original as far as I can see, namely: * It's completely and utterly different (except now for the bar at the top) to the rest of the site. * It's totally unobvious that there is more information below the fold - it just looks like a big picture with an overlaid information panel and only somebody who makes a habit of staring at the scrollbar is going to realise there is more to see by scrolling. * I'm not sure what the purpose of the arrow icon in the bottom right is meant to be? As far as I can tell it just reloads the background image, which seems utterly pointless... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
It seems that the desire to use a huge image as the background comes at the expense of the page content. To me a copyright page is about getting the *details* over. By placing too much emphasis on the image the copyright page appears like a *brand* or some fancy press release. We have other pages that can be used for that. :-) By the way, who gets to pick the images used on the copyright page? What if USA Today want to use a different image that better aligns with their brand? Regards, Rob p.s. Attribution mark is much better, though I share the concerns about using by. p.p.s By *details* I mean the legal jargon, plus a message that says hey you can get involved too. I don't think an image alone does this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On 22.04.13 14:40, Alex Barth wrote: 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM While OSM is a common phrase to us mappers, only the name/brand OpenStreetMap is widely and well known to the public. So this name OpenStreetMap should always be visible, whether the attribution is more or less graphical. If the /copyright page is updated, it should more clearly state the BY- and SA-ishness of the licenses used today. /al ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
On Apr 22, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to. It is much closer to today's `/copyright` I think the new copyright page is very nice looking and presents its data well, but I, personally, still find it a little confusing in that there are very few visual cues that you can scroll down. Agreed with this, and follow-up posts saying similar things. Gov.uk are the ones to emulate for quick answers and correct explanations, e.g.: https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-an-overview https://www.gov.uk/bank-holidays -mike. michal migurski- contact info and pgp key: sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
