Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Simon Poole]

Am 09.09.2019 um 01:41 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> Re: > where to put the attribution when multiple sources have been
> used in a map rendering and OSM is not the source of the majority of
> the data presented.
>
> On (or on top of) the rendered map, in the same font weight as any
> other logo or other copyright notice, and preferably with a clickable
> hyperlink to https://www.openstreetmap.org (only required if this is
> also offered for other features on the map).
>
> The (c)Openstreetmap should be included if any other attribution is
> included. If there isn't room for (c)OSM, then there should not be any
> other logo or copyright on the map either. In in this case a generic
> "i" or "(c)" link could be included to another page - so the only
> situation where Openstreetamp attribution should not be shown on the
> map is where there is not room for any attribution or logo.

(c)OSM is not sufficient nor something that we could require as
attribution for a host of different reasons. So could we please stay on
topic.

>> Nobody is making any exceptions.
> The currently policy seems to allow rendered maps to show the logo of
> the map renderer and copyrights of other data sources on the map if
> they make up the majority of the data shown, without showing the
> Openstreetmap copyright notice or link. I think it's clear that
> several contributors disagree with this exception, myself included.

There is no current guidance for the use of multiple sources which is
why we are in the progress of  developing one.

The reason why it is completely sensible to not require on map
attribution when OSM data is not the major part of the data presented,
is because OSM is not the major part of the data presented. We should
not be interested in having wonky data from, choose your favourite OSM
competitor, being attributed to us (btw we get enough mistaken
complaints as is) and there is a trade off between accuracy and the room
required to express that and the simplicity and visibility of the
attribution.

As laid out in the intro to the document, the attribution that is
provided should not be confusing and should enable the person
interacting with the produced work to determine what data is obtained
from "the database", aka OSM in our case. Blanket attribution to OSM of
all sources used does not do that.

Simon

> -Joseph Eisenberg
>
> (Disclosure: Just a volunteer contributor as a mapper and at
> Openstreetmap-carto, I don't have any financial interest in this
> project, nor will the copyright policy directly affect me, except when
> I print out maps, I suppose)
>
> On 9/9/19, Simon Poole  wrote:
>> Am 08.09.2019 um 23:52 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
>>> On Sunday 08 September 2019, Clifford Snow wrote:
 Christoph,
 What would you recommend and how can it be implemented and tested to
 insure compliance with the license? How does the user of OSM data
 figure out what data is counted in the threshold for requiring full
 attribution. Especially when the OSM usage may just be a basemap from
 a 3rd party tile server.
>>> I think any substantial use of OSM data should be attributed in a way
>>> that is "reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
>>> views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced
>>> Work aware that Content was obtained from" - like the license says.  No
>>> exceptions.
>> Nobody is making any exceptions.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Joseph Eisenberg]

In the case of 10 sources with ODbL attribution requirements, I would
still prefer that (c)Openstreetmap be included on the rendering,
because this is the only ODbL project that is totally free and open
and created by individual volunteers, as far as I am aware.

Government-created databases have already been paid for by taxpayers,
and will not stop existing if no one knows about them. But
Openstreetmap needs new contributors, so we need people to know that
we exist.

However, as I mentioned above, I'm fine with providing a link to ALL
copyright and attribution notices, when it's physically impossible to
attribute them all properly due to limited space.

This means that there can't be a "facebook" or "Mapbox" logo on the
map: just a link "copyright attribution" or "data sources" (or "i" if
it's a tiny 100x100 pixel map) - ideally this would pop up without
needing to click, if it's online.

If the map renderer wants to include their logo, then they must
include (c)Openstreetmap as well (or perhaps (c)OSM if it's a tiny
200*200 pixel / 2cm*2cm map and their own logo is tiny)

If the map renderer wants to include a link to their website or any
other website on the online or rendered map, then they have to include
a link to Openstreetmap.org. Full stop.

Please provide a practical real-world example where these requirements
are impossible to meet, if I'm mistaken.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 9/9/19, Simon Poole  wrote:
> To illustrate where this discussion has gone awry please consider a
> rendering using 10 data sources all licensed on ODbL terms (in real life
> it is not uncommon to have multiple dozens of different sources, so 10
> is not a high number).  The ODbL does not, nor does any other open
> licence, intend for such a product not to be possible because of the
> practicalities of  providing simultaneously visible attribution of all
> sources all the time.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re: > where to put the attribution when multiple sources have been
used in a map rendering and OSM is not the source of the majority of
the data presented.

On (or on top of) the rendered map, in the same font weight as any
other logo or other copyright notice, and preferably with a clickable
hyperlink to https://www.openstreetmap.org (only required if this is
also offered for other features on the map).

The (c)Openstreetmap should be included if any other attribution is
included. If there isn't room for (c)OSM, then there should not be any
other logo or copyright on the map either. In in this case a generic
"i" or "(c)" link could be included to another page - so the only
situation where Openstreetamp attribution should not be shown on the
map is where there is not room for any attribution or logo.

> Nobody is making any exceptions.

The currently policy seems to allow rendered maps to show the logo of
the map renderer and copyrights of other data sources on the map if
they make up the majority of the data shown, without showing the
Openstreetmap copyright notice or link. I think it's clear that
several contributors disagree with this exception, myself included.

-Joseph Eisenberg

(Disclosure: Just a volunteer contributor as a mapper and at
Openstreetmap-carto, I don't have any financial interest in this
project, nor will the copyright policy directly affect me, except when
I print out maps, I suppose)

On 9/9/19, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
> Am 08.09.2019 um 23:52 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
>> On Sunday 08 September 2019, Clifford Snow wrote:
>>> Christoph,
>>> What would you recommend and how can it be implemented and tested to
>>> insure compliance with the license? How does the user of OSM data
>>> figure out what data is counted in the threshold for requiring full
>>> attribution. Especially when the OSM usage may just be a basemap from
>>> a 3rd party tile server.
>> I think any substantial use of OSM data should be attributed in a way
>> that is "reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
>> views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced
>> Work aware that Content was obtained from" - like the license says.  No
>> exceptions.
>
> Nobody is making any exceptions.
>
> Simon
>
>
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> >
> > I think any substantial use of OSM data should be attributed in a
> > way that is "reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
> > views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the
> > Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from" - like the
> > license says.  No exceptions.
>
> Nobody is making any exceptions.

Allowing for an 'attribution light' - a concept that is not in any way 
supported or implied by the ODbL - under specific circumstances, is 
clearly an exception.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Simon Poole]

To illustrate where this discussion has gone awry please consider a
rendering using 10 data sources all licensed on ODbL terms (in real life
it is not uncommon to have multiple dozens of different sources, so 10
is not a high number).  The ODbL does not, nor does any other open
licence, intend for such a product not to be possible because of the
practicalities of  providing simultaneously visible attribution of all
sources all the time.

Am 09.09.2019 um 00:10 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> The attribution should be at least (c)OpenStreetMap, but it's fine to
> give more detail like:
>
> 1. Using just the coastal shoreline in the basemap:
>
> (c) OtherDataSource, coastline (c)OpenStreetMap
>
> 2. Using OSM basemap in 1 along with roads, rivers and water bodies
>
>  (c) OtherDataSource, basemap (c)OpenStreetMap
>
> 3. Using OSM basemap with 2 and buildings
>
> (c)OpenStreetMap,  (c) OtherDataSource
>
> It seems simpler to just clearly state "you need to include
> (c)OpenStreetMap on the map if you use OpenStreetMap" rather than
> making more complicated rules.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Simon Poole]

Nobody is even remotely suggesting that use OpenStreetMap data can be
used without attribution (claims that that is the case lead me to
believe that some haven't actually read the document in question).

The discussion is solely about the practicalities  of where to put the
attribution when multiple sources have been used in a map rendering and
OSM is not the source of the majority of the data presented.

Simon

Am 08.09.2019 um 23:48 schrieb stevea:
> I don't want to sound overly simplistic, but as a copyright holder, I believe 
> if ANY amount of my (or "our" in the sense of copyright shared among many 
> individuals, as are the rights in OSM's ODbL) data-under-license are included 
> in a derivative work, and I mean ANY non-zero amount, "attribution" (as ODbL 
> defines attribution) is legally required.
>
> I believe ODbL agrees with this (there is no mention of "percentages" there), 
> though I am not an attorney.  Why is this so difficult?
>
> "Any non-zero amount of OSM data yields a legal requirement for proper 
> attribution."  Do I miss something?
>
> SteveA
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.09.2019 um 23:52 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Sunday 08 September 2019, Clifford Snow wrote:
>> Christoph,
>> What would you recommend and how can it be implemented and tested to
>> insure compliance with the license? How does the user of OSM data
>> figure out what data is counted in the threshold for requiring full
>> attribution. Especially when the OSM usage may just be a basemap from
>> a 3rd party tile server.
> I think any substantial use of OSM data should be attributed in a way 
> that is "reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
> views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced
> Work aware that Content was obtained from" - like the license says.  No 
> exceptions.

Nobody is making any exceptions.

Simon




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The attribution should be at least (c)OpenStreetMap, but it's fine to
give more detail like:

1. Using just the coastal shoreline in the basemap:

(c) OtherDataSource, coastline (c)OpenStreetMap

2. Using OSM basemap in 1 along with roads, rivers and water bodies

 (c) OtherDataSource, basemap (c)OpenStreetMap

3. Using OSM basemap with 2 and buildings

(c)OpenStreetMap,  (c) OtherDataSource

It seems simpler to just clearly state "you need to include
(c)OpenStreetMap on the map if you use OpenStreetMap" rather than
making more complicated rules.

- Joseph Eisenberg

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 08 September 2019, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> Christoph,
> What would you recommend and how can it be implemented and tested to
> insure compliance with the license? How does the user of OSM data
> figure out what data is counted in the threshold for requiring full
> attribution. Especially when the OSM usage may just be a basemap from
> a 3rd party tile server.

I think any substantial use of OSM data should be attributed in a way 
that is "reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced
Work aware that Content was obtained from" - like the license says.  No 
exceptions.

Bargaining away this attrbution requirement because a data user has 
diluted OSM data with other data is just not a good idea.  It 
complicates the whole matter, is in conflict with the letter and spirit 
of license and why we have the attribution requirement and as explained 
the dilution threshold is also practically non-quantifiable.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[stevea]

I don't want to sound overly simplistic, but as a copyright holder, I believe 
if ANY amount of my (or "our" in the sense of copyright shared among many 
individuals, as are the rights in OSM's ODbL) data-under-license are included 
in a derivative work, and I mean ANY non-zero amount, "attribution" (as ODbL 
defines attribution) is legally required.

I believe ODbL agrees with this (there is no mention of "percentages" there), 
though I am not an attorney.  Why is this so difficult?

"Any non-zero amount of OSM data yields a legal requirement for proper 
attribution."  Do I miss something?

SteveA

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:24 PM Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> >
> > But in any case the guideline refers to the  "visible map rendering".
> > At least in conventional use of the term, aerial imagery is not a
> > map, but if you so which we could surely add a definition for "map"
> > that makes it clear that we are referring to the rendering of map
> > vector data and similar and not image-like layers.
>
> I think i have made my point that your concept of quantifying data
> fractions is based on a very fragile understanding of the granularity
> of the data involved - not a good basis for any kind of universal
> rules.
>
> Yes, you can try patching the holes in this concept by re-defining what
> a map is but at the end of the day to define a relative fraction of OSM
> data use as a quantitative cutoff for an 'attribution light' is just a
> bad idea IMO.
>

Christoph,
What would you recommend and how can it be implemented and tested to insure
compliance with the license? How does the user of OSM data figure out what
data is counted in the threshold for requiring full attribution. Especially
when the OSM usage may just be a basemap from a 3rd party tile server.

Using examples like:
1. Using just the coastal shoreline in the basemap
2. Using OSM basemap in 1 along with roads, rivers and water bodies
3. Using OSM basemap with 2 and buildings
etc.

Best,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> But in any case the guideline refers to the  "visible map rendering".
> At least in conventional use of the term, aerial imagery is not a
> map, but if you so which we could surely add a definition for "map"
> that makes it clear that we are referring to the rendering of map
> vector data and similar and not image-like layers.

I think i have made my point that your concept of quantifying data 
fractions is based on a very fragile understanding of the granularity 
of the data involved - not a good basis for any kind of universal 
rules.

Yes, you can try patching the holes in this concept by re-defining what 
a map is but at the end of the day to define a relative fraction of OSM 
data use as a quantitative cutoff for an 'attribution light' is just a 
bad idea IMO.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Diversity-talk] Your talk submission for SotM 2019

[Rory McCann]

Hi all,

I'm happy lend a helping hand if I can. I put my name on the pad.

I was considering of running a LGBTQ* "bird of a feather"/"self 
organized session" at SotM too which is sorta related.


Rory

On So, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:47 PM, Miriam Mapanauta  
wrote:

Hi Heather,

I am happy to participate in the discussion :)

Thanks,

Miriam

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:07 PM Heather Leson  
wrote:
HI folks, I heard back from Rebecca and Patricia. they will help 
out. We would very much like to engage others. Let me know if you 
would like to be involved.  We will need the following:


4 or 5 helpers (low prep, just help lead a discussion)
an OSM Diary. Happy to cowrite with you

Our allies at the Mozilla Diversity and Inclusion mailing list 
suggested a format. I think it is helpful. I put the notes and 
format draft here. Edits welcome


https://pads.ccc.de/bwWXryNYXv

See you soon

Heather

Heather Leson
heatherle...@gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com


On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:47 PM Heather Leson 
 wrote:

Dear colleagues,

I hope that your summer was grand.

I am researching formats for this. One thing that might help us is 
to tackle what is inclusive language and what are some of the 
measures to improve diversity - specifically in the board and 
working groups. Thoughts?


"The OSM community is global and diverse. Building on last year's 
Open Heroines conversation, we will co-create a space for OSM to 
talk about how to improve diversity and inclusion in our amazing 
project. All welcome."


How can OSM be more diverse and inclusive? Join us to share your 
lessons and ideas on how we might grow and support a Diversity and 
Inclusive approach in OSM. This is an activity taking place across 
other 'open' communities. We will ask participants to co-create 
plans and identify how we might incorporate it into small and big 
activities within the global network. The format will be co-created 
with some potential outcomes. The goal is to be a conversation with 
interactive, participatory methods and some small group work.


See more about this topic:
https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcitizen/2019/03/04/open-source-inclusion/
https://opensourcediversity.org/
https://github.com/mozilla/diversity


Shared planning space - https://pads.ccc.de/bwWXryNYXv


Thank you

Heather
Heather Leson
heatherle...@gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com


On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 4:47 PM Heather Leson 
 wrote:
HI everyone, sorry for my delay.  Christine, thanks to you and the 
org committee for this opportunity. We will make this time work 
for us.



Dear colleagues, I am going on leave until August 14th. shall we 
set up a document to plan this session. Miriam - I have made 
remote participation possible in the past. We will do our best.


Heather


Heather Leson
heatherle...@gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:13 AM Miriam Mapanauta 
 wrote:

Hi Christine,

No problem from my side, I can be available remotely, I don't 
believe I will be able to attend the event.


Thanks,

Miriam

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 1:10 PM Christine Karch 
 wrote:

Hi all,

 yesterday we had our schedule meeting. It was quite difficult 
to find a
 suitable place for your session as you have quite divergent 
availability

 time frames mentioned.

 We scheduled your session for 09-22 at 14h. We got a warning 
that Miriam
 is not available at this time. Could you please have a look at 
Miriam
 availability times. They seem to be very limited, maybe you 
made a

 mistake during the submission process.

 Kind regards,

 Christine



--

Miriam
@mapanauta



--

Miriam
@mapanauta




___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.09.2019 um 20:37 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>> I think you are confusing potentially extractable information with
>> actual data. For example satellite imagery may have a potentially
>> high information content that could be with appropriate processing be
>> turned in to data, but each image in itself is at most one datum.
> I see - so you want to quantify by counting 'data objects' of some sort.  
> I assume for the OSM side you want to go with the quantification of one 
> OSM feature equals one countable object and a large lake multipolygon 
> for example can count a few thousand?
>
> You'd still loose by a huge margin in a map with contour line relief 
> rendering of course.
>
> And i would still hold the bet that i would be able to get the OSM 
> fraction of any map below 50 percent without too much effort.
>
>> Now waiting for the every image is a pixel database argument.
> You are aware that most satellite image layers used in visualizations 
> are produced from hundreds of thousands or even millions of individual 
> images, assembled pretty much in the same way as a map rendering is 
> assembled from multiple features.  It therefore seems your 'one datum' 
> concept is somewhat fragile.

I wrote "at most" one datum, I would argue that that an image is an
image (even if it is a composite image) and not a datum.

But in any case the guideline refers to the  "visible map rendering". At
least in conventional use of the term, aerial imagery is not a map, but
if you so which we could surely add a definition for "map" that makes it
clear that we are referring to the rendering of map vector data and
similar and not image-like layers.

Simon

>
> I see exactly one possible quantification of data fractions in a map 
> that could not be easily circumvented.  That would be based on the 
> number of human work hours that went into producing the data.  This is 
> a rule i could support:  If more human work hours went into producing 
> the non-OSM source data used in a map than in the OSM data used 
> attribution that is hidden by default is acceptable.
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Diversity-talk] Your talk submission for SotM 2019

[Miriam Mapanauta]

Hi Heather,

I am happy to participate in the discussion :)

Thanks,

Miriam

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:07 PM Heather Leson  wrote:

> HI folks, I heard back from Rebecca and Patricia. they will help out. We
> would very much like to engage others. Let me know if you would like to be
> involved.  We will need the following:
>
> 4 or 5 helpers (low prep, just help lead a discussion)
> an OSM Diary. Happy to cowrite with you
>
> Our allies at the Mozilla Diversity and Inclusion mailing list suggested a
> format. I think it is helpful. I put the notes and format draft here. Edits
> welcome
>
> https://pads.ccc.de/bwWXryNYXv
>
> See you soon
>
> Heather
>
> Heather Leson
> heatherle...@gmail.com
> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
> Blog: textontechs.com
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:47 PM Heather Leson 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> I hope that your summer was grand.
>>
>> I am researching formats for this. One thing that might help us is to
>> tackle what is inclusive language and what are some of the measures to
>> improve diversity - specifically in the board and working groups. Thoughts?
>>
>> "The OSM community is global and diverse. Building on last year's Open
>> Heroines conversation, we will co-create a space for OSM to talk about
>> how to improve diversity and inclusion in our amazing project. All
>> welcome."
>>
>> How can OSM be more diverse and inclusive? Join us to share your lessons
>> and ideas on how we might grow and support a Diversity and Inclusive
>> approach in OSM. This is an activity taking place across other 'open'
>> communities. We will ask participants to co-create plans and identify how
>> we might incorporate it into small and big activities within the global
>> network. The format will be co-created with some potential outcomes. The
>> goal is to be a conversation with interactive, participatory methods and
>> some small group work.
>>
>> See more about this topic:
>> https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcitizen/2019/03/04/open-source-inclusion/
>> https://opensourcediversity.org/
>> https://github.com/mozilla/diversity
>>
>>
>> Shared planning space - https://pads.ccc.de/bwWXryNYXv
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Heather
>> Heather Leson
>> heatherle...@gmail.com
>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
>> Blog: textontechs.com
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 4:47 PM Heather Leson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> HI everyone, sorry for my delay.  Christine, thanks to you and the org
>>> committee for this opportunity. We will make this time work for us.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues, I am going on leave until August 14th. shall we set up
>>> a document to plan this session. Miriam - I have made remote participation
>>> possible in the past. We will do our best.
>>>
>>> Heather
>>>
>>>
>>> Heather Leson
>>> heatherle...@gmail.com
>>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
>>> Blog: textontechs.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:13 AM Miriam Mapanauta 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Christine,

 No problem from my side, I can be available remotely, I don't believe I
 will be able to attend the event.

 Thanks,

 Miriam

 On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 1:10 PM Christine Karch 
 wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> yesterday we had our schedule meeting. It was quite difficult to find a
> suitable place for your session as you have quite divergent
> availability
> time frames mentioned.
>
> We scheduled your session for 09-22 at 14h. We got a warning that
> Miriam
> is not available at this time. Could you please have a look at Miriam
> availability times. They seem to be very limited, maybe you made a
> mistake during the submission process.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Christine
>


 --

 Miriam
 @mapanauta

>>>

-- 

Miriam
@mapanauta
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> I think you are confusing potentially extractable information with
> actual data. For example satellite imagery may have a potentially
> high information content that could be with appropriate processing be
> turned in to data, but each image in itself is at most one datum.

I see - so you want to quantify by counting 'data objects' of some sort.  
I assume for the OSM side you want to go with the quantification of one 
OSM feature equals one countable object and a large lake multipolygon 
for example can count a few thousand?

You'd still loose by a huge margin in a map with contour line relief 
rendering of course.

And i would still hold the bet that i would be able to get the OSM 
fraction of any map below 50 percent without too much effort.

> Now waiting for the every image is a pixel database argument.

You are aware that most satellite image layers used in visualizations 
are produced from hundreds of thousands or even millions of individual 
images, assembled pretty much in the same way as a map rendering is 
assembled from multiple features.  It therefore seems your 'one datum' 
concept is somewhat fragile.

I see exactly one possible quantification of data fractions in a map 
that could not be easily circumvented.  That would be based on the 
number of human work hours that went into producing the data.  This is 
a rule i could support:  If more human work hours went into producing 
the non-OSM source data used in a map than in the OSM data used 
attribution that is hidden by default is acceptable.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Diversity-talk] Your talk submission for SotM 2019

[Heather Leson]

HI folks, I heard back from Rebecca and Patricia. they will help out. We
would very much like to engage others. Let me know if you would like to be
involved.  We will need the following:

4 or 5 helpers (low prep, just help lead a discussion)
an OSM Diary. Happy to cowrite with you

Our allies at the Mozilla Diversity and Inclusion mailing list suggested a
format. I think it is helpful. I put the notes and format draft here. Edits
welcome

https://pads.ccc.de/bwWXryNYXv

See you soon

Heather

Heather Leson
heatherle...@gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com


On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:47 PM Heather Leson  wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> I hope that your summer was grand.
>
> I am researching formats for this. One thing that might help us is to
> tackle what is inclusive language and what are some of the measures to
> improve diversity - specifically in the board and working groups. Thoughts?
>
> "The OSM community is global and diverse. Building on last year's Open
> Heroines conversation, we will co-create a space for OSM to talk about
> how to improve diversity and inclusion in our amazing project. All
> welcome."
>
> How can OSM be more diverse and inclusive? Join us to share your lessons
> and ideas on how we might grow and support a Diversity and Inclusive
> approach in OSM. This is an activity taking place across other 'open'
> communities. We will ask participants to co-create plans and identify how
> we might incorporate it into small and big activities within the global
> network. The format will be co-created with some potential outcomes. The
> goal is to be a conversation with interactive, participatory methods and
> some small group work.
>
> See more about this topic:
> https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcitizen/2019/03/04/open-source-inclusion/
> https://opensourcediversity.org/
> https://github.com/mozilla/diversity
>
>
> Shared planning space - https://pads.ccc.de/bwWXryNYXv
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Heather
> Heather Leson
> heatherle...@gmail.com
> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
> Blog: textontechs.com
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 4:47 PM Heather Leson 
> wrote:
>
>> HI everyone, sorry for my delay.  Christine, thanks to you and the org
>> committee for this opportunity. We will make this time work for us.
>>
>>
>> Dear colleagues, I am going on leave until August 14th. shall we set up a
>> document to plan this session. Miriam - I have made remote participation
>> possible in the past. We will do our best.
>>
>> Heather
>>
>>
>> Heather Leson
>> heatherle...@gmail.com
>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
>> Blog: textontechs.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:13 AM Miriam Mapanauta 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Christine,
>>>
>>> No problem from my side, I can be available remotely, I don't believe I
>>> will be able to attend the event.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Miriam
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 1:10 PM Christine Karch 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 yesterday we had our schedule meeting. It was quite difficult to find a
 suitable place for your session as you have quite divergent availability
 time frames mentioned.

 We scheduled your session for 09-22 at 14h. We got a warning that Miriam
 is not available at this time. Could you please have a look at Miriam
 availability times. They seem to be very limited, maybe you made a
 mistake during the submission process.

 Kind regards,

 Christine

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Miriam
>>> @mapanauta
>>>
>>
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.09.2019 um 19:39 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>> /If OpenStreetMap is not the largest data provider for the visible
>> map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page that
>> is visible after user interaction is acceptable./
>>
>> [...]
> For understanding the practical function of such a rule (and the efforts 
> necessary to circumvent it of course) - how do you measure the fraction 
> OSM accounts for as data provider for a map, especially if several 
> different data types are involved.  If you go by data volume (which can 
> be easily changed by several orders of magnitude through geometry 
> compression and expansion methods of course) i would probably say i 
> have never seen a map with relief depiction (like shading or countour 
> lines) where the majority of the data is from OSM.  Any satellite image 
> layer with annotation labels and lines (boundaries, roads etc.) from 
> OSM would equally be exempt from visible attribution under such rule.

I think you are confusing potentially extractable information with
actual data. For example satellite imagery may have a potentially high
information content that could be with appropriate processing be turned
in to data, but each image in itself is at most one datum. Now waiting
for the every image is a pixel database argument.

Simon 

>
> Practically i think everyone should be aware that such rule is a clear 
> invitation how to avoid the need for attribution for map producers.  I 
> would go as far as saying that no matter how you answer my question as 
> to how data fractions are measured any map could be easily modified by 
> adding sufficient other data to get the OSM fraction below the 50 
> percent limit and this way get off the hook.
>
> As already said i don't see how such a recommendation could in any way 
> be considered compatible with the ODbL attribution requirements.
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Yves]

How about:
You display OSM data, you attribute, and you attribute on the map view.

If that's what we want, I would be OK for a short attribution like (c)OSM&co. 

Yves 

Le 8 septembre 2019 19:39:55 GMT+02:00, Christoph Hormann  a 
écrit :
>On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>>
>> /If OpenStreetMap is not the largest data provider for the visible
>> map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page that
>> is visible after user interaction is acceptable./
>>
>> [...]
>
>For understanding the practical function of such a rule (and the
>efforts 
>necessary to circumvent it of course) - how do you measure the fraction
>
>OSM accounts for as data provider for a map, especially if several 
>different data types are involved.  If you go by data volume (which can
>
>be easily changed by several orders of magnitude through geometry 
>compression and expansion methods of course) i would probably say i 
>have never seen a map with relief depiction (like shading or countour 
>lines) where the majority of the data is from OSM.  Any satellite image
>
>layer with annotation labels and lines (boundaries, roads etc.) from 
>OSM would equally be exempt from visible attribution under such rule.
>
>Practically i think everyone should be aware that such rule is a clear 
>invitation how to avoid the need for attribution for map producers.  I 
>would go as far as saying that no matter how you answer my question as 
>to how data fractions are measured any map could be easily modified by 
>adding sufficient other data to get the OSM fraction below the 50 
>percent limit and this way get off the hook.
>
>As already said i don't see how such a recommendation could in any way 
>be considered compatible with the ODbL attribution requirements.
>
>-- 
>Christoph Hormann
>http://www.imagico.de/
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> /If OpenStreetMap is not the largest data provider for the visible
> map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page that
> is visible after user interaction is acceptable./
>
> [...]

For understanding the practical function of such a rule (and the efforts 
necessary to circumvent it of course) - how do you measure the fraction 
OSM accounts for as data provider for a map, especially if several 
different data types are involved.  If you go by data volume (which can 
be easily changed by several orders of magnitude through geometry 
compression and expansion methods of course) i would probably say i 
have never seen a map with relief depiction (like shading or countour 
lines) where the majority of the data is from OSM.  Any satellite image 
layer with annotation labels and lines (boundaries, roads etc.) from 
OSM would equally be exempt from visible attribution under such rule.

Practically i think everyone should be aware that such rule is a clear 
invitation how to avoid the need for attribution for map producers.  I 
would go as far as saying that no matter how you answer my question as 
to how data fractions are measured any map could be easily modified by 
adding sufficient other data to get the OSM fraction below the 50 
percent limit and this way get off the hook.

As already said i don't see how such a recommendation could in any way 
be considered compatible with the ODbL attribution requirements.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #476 2019-08-27-2019-09-02

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 476,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/12371/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Simon Poole]

BTW a potential tweak to the wording (caveat: not discussed with
anybody) that would perhaps make the multiple data sources scenario work
a bit better is to change the current

/If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of
the visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate
page that is visible after user interaction is acceptable. /

//

to

//

/If OpenStreetMap is not the largest data provider for the visible map
rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page that is
visible after user interaction is acceptable./

Which would require on map attribution not only for the 50% and more
case, but also for any case in which the majority of the visible data is
from OSM. It does break down a bit when there are numerous small data
sources of very similar size. Naturally one can argue about what
"largest" means in the context which however applies to the suggested
50% rule too.

Simon

Am 08.09.2019 um 16:38 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> I don't quite follow your argument here. According to the draft
> guideline if a majority of the data displayed is derived from OSM,
> then attribution needs to be displayed on map. So assuming that the
> prerequisite is met, as you are saying, the draft guideline would
> require exactly what you want.
>
> The -other- problem with the site is that it is implying a partnership
> which doesn't exist. Something which we clearly don't want for
> commercial law and liability reasons, given the wording of the ODbL I
> doubt that we can base such a requirement on the licence (but likely
> on use of our trademarks).
>
> Simon
>
> Am 08.09.2019 um 12:11 schrieb Nuno Caldeira:
>>
>> Here's another example of why we should not adopt the multiple
>> sources attribution omission of our attribution. They list us as
>> partners (?)
>> https://www.wrld3d.com/3d-maps/custom-maps
>> Use multiple sources and are not complying with ODbL by not showing
>> the license.
>> Seen multiple maps by their clients and they show data "copyright l.map"
>>
>> I have confirmed with multiple contributors that largely the data
>> used is OSM and it's around a year old dump of the planet.
>>
>> Simon Poole mailto:si...@poole.ch>> escreveu em sex,
>> 9/08/2019 às 08:45 :
>>
>> As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG
>> decided
>> last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one
>> document and
>> address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
>> years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
>> parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media
>> platforms
>> we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define
>> concrete
>> minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
>> provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
>> something different. 
>>
>> We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and
>> are now
>> largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
>> make it available for public comment together with a BoF session
>> at SotM
>> next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a
>> coffee
>> break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
>> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
>> appreciate feedback on.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to
>> appropriate
>> another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Simon Poole]

I don't quite follow your argument here. According to the draft
guideline if a majority of the data displayed is derived from OSM, then
attribution needs to be displayed on map. So assuming that the
prerequisite is met, as you are saying, the draft guideline would
require exactly what you want.

The -other- problem with the site is that it is implying a partnership
which doesn't exist. Something which we clearly don't want for
commercial law and liability reasons, given the wording of the ODbL I
doubt that we can base such a requirement on the licence (but likely on
use of our trademarks).

Simon

Am 08.09.2019 um 12:11 schrieb Nuno Caldeira:
>
> Here's another example of why we should not adopt the multiple sources
> attribution omission of our attribution. They list us as partners (?)
> https://www.wrld3d.com/3d-maps/custom-maps
> Use multiple sources and are not complying with ODbL by not showing
> the license.
> Seen multiple maps by their clients and they show data "copyright l.map"
>
> I have confirmed with multiple contributors that largely the data used
> is OSM and it's around a year old dump of the planet.
>
> Simon Poole mailto:si...@poole.ch>> escreveu em sex,
> 9/08/2019 às 08:45 :
>
> As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG
> decided
> last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one
> document and
> address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
> years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
> parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media
> platforms
> we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define
> concrete
> minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
> provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
> something different. 
>
> We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and are now
> largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
> make it available for public comment together with a BoF session
> at SotM
> next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a
> coffee
> break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
> appreciate feedback on.
>
> Simon
>
> PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to
> appropriate
> another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.
>
>
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[James]

Can confirm roads, buildings, parks are from OSM from a little bit more
than a year ago.

Not sure what the other sources contributed

On Sun., Sep. 8, 2019, 6:17 a.m. Nuno Caldeira, <
nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Here's another example of why we should not adopt the multiple sources
> attribution omission of our attribution. They list us as partners (?)
> https://www.wrld3d.com/3d-maps/custom-maps
> Use multiple sources and are not complying with ODbL by not showing the
> license.
> Seen multiple maps by their clients and they show data "copyright l.map"
>
> I have confirmed with multiple contributors that largely the data used is
> OSM and it's around a year old dump of the planet.
>
> Simon Poole  escreveu em sex, 9/08/2019 às 08:45 :
>
>> As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
>> last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document and
>> address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
>> years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
>> parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media platforms
>> we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define concrete
>> minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
>> provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
>> something different.
>>
>> We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and are now
>> largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
>> make it available for public comment together with a BoF session at SotM
>> next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a coffee
>> break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
>> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
>> appreciate feedback on.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to appropriate
>> another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Nuno Caldeira]

Here's another example of why we should not adopt the multiple sources
attribution omission of our attribution. They list us as partners (?)
https://www.wrld3d.com/3d-maps/custom-maps
Use multiple sources and are not complying with ODbL by not showing the
license.
Seen multiple maps by their clients and they show data "copyright l.map"

I have confirmed with multiple contributors that largely the data used is
OSM and it's around a year old dump of the planet.

Simon Poole  escreveu em sex, 9/08/2019 às 08:45 :

> As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
> last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document and
> address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
> years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
> parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media platforms
> we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define concrete
> minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
> provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
> something different.
>
> We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and are now
> largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
> make it available for public comment together with a BoF session at SotM
> next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a coffee
> break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
> appreciate feedback on.
>
> Simon
>
> PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to appropriate
> another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.
>
>
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk