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

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

After the standard email, the following page has now been fixed and the company 
is reviewing their entire website for correct attribution where OSM data has 
been used.

 

https://parallel.co.uk/netherlands/#14.23/52.34361/4.85248/0/40

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Nuno Caldeira  
Sent: Sunday, 29 December 2019 11:45 PM
To: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list ; Phil Wyatt 

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

 

If you read this https://blog.mapbox.com/19-amazing-maps-from-2019-c2db8f2b6b9f 
you can see several clients of them that are not complying. Example 
https://parallel.co.uk/netherlands/#14.23/52.34361/4.85248/0/40 they credited 
us as OSM  and no notice of what the license is or hyperlink.

 

But still they are "amazing" maps that are not complying with OSM license. See 
how many of those actually do comply 

 

Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com> > 
escreveu em dom, 29/12/2019 às 08:40 :



sent from a phone

> On 29. Dec 2019, at 07:18, Phil Wyatt  <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:
> 
> I think what many people are suggesting is that the attribution cant be 
> behind an I icon or similar. I have noted that on wider screens the correct 
> attribution is shown but as screen size gets smaller it MAY disappear (to 
> behind the I Icon or similar) on SOME sites or SOME operating systems. I 
> think the size is 600 pixels or thereabouts. Is this the "issue" you really 
> want resolved? Very easy to test on any PC screen. If I rotate my mobile 
> device the full attribution is often there whilst behind some icon in 
> portrait mode.
> 
> This is all up to the developer of the site or app I would suggest, not 
> Mapbox or any other tile provider, who in general provide good documentation 
> spelling out when Open Street Map attribution is required.


actually this kind of attribution is provided by mapbox’s frameworks like 
mapbox-gl-js and if you (as a developer) do not implement your own attribution 
mechanism you will automatically get (comparatively small) OpenStreetMap 
attribution that hides behind an i while the (bigger) mapbox logo in the left 
corner will stay there at any screen width.

WRT an OpenStreetMap provided textmark/icon: this was proposed by mapbox years 
ago and at the time rejected.

Cheers Martin 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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]

If you read this
https://blog.mapbox.com/19-amazing-maps-from-2019-c2db8f2b6b9f you can see
several clients of them that are not complying. Example
https://parallel.co.uk/netherlands/#14.23/52.34361/4.85248/0/40 they
credited us as OSM  and no notice of what the license is or hyperlink.

But still they are "amazing" maps that are not complying with OSM license.
See how many of those actually do comply

Martin Koppenhoefer  escreveu em dom, 29/12/2019 às
08:40 :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 29. Dec 2019, at 07:18, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
> >
> > I think what many people are suggesting is that the attribution cant be
> behind an I icon or similar. I have noted that on wider screens the correct
> attribution is shown but as screen size gets smaller it MAY disappear (to
> behind the I Icon or similar) on SOME sites or SOME operating systems. I
> think the size is 600 pixels or thereabouts. Is this the "issue" you really
> want resolved? Very easy to test on any PC screen. If I rotate my mobile
> device the full attribution is often there whilst behind some icon in
> portrait mode.
> >
> > This is all up to the developer of the site or app I would suggest, not
> Mapbox or any other tile provider, who in general provide good
> documentation spelling out when Open Street Map attribution is required.
>
>
> actually this kind of attribution is provided by mapbox’s frameworks like
> mapbox-gl-js and if you (as a developer) do not implement your own
> attribution mechanism you will automatically get (comparatively small)
> OpenStreetMap attribution that hides behind an i while the (bigger) mapbox
> logo in the left corner will stay there at any screen width.
>
> WRT an OpenStreetMap provided textmark/icon: this was proposed by mapbox
> years ago and at the time rejected.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
> ___
> 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]

true, but was mentioned here on March 2019

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-March/082147.html

On 29/12/2019 03:43, Kathleen Lu wrote:
Nuno I searched your attachment for the word "Snap" and it is nowhere 
to be found.


On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:55 AM Nuno Caldeira 
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


Hi Mateusz,


They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October
2018, yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time
to be fixed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing


On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Have they responded with anything
(except automatic reply) ?

Is there an assigned issue id?


23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com
:

I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>>
wrote:


As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company
(via Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without
attribution requirements (funnily there's plenty of
space for a reasonable and visible calculated mapbox
logo and text). They probably don't know, nor that
they have been asked to comply over a year ago, nor
have agreed with the license in every aspect of it
when stated using OSM data, nor read Mapbox TOS, or
Mapbox been informed on these repeated offenders, nor
read the multiples reports in mailing lists, nor that
they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.

https://map.snapchat.com/

Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing
is going on for over a year with these two companies
that are corporate members of OSMF and should be the
first ones to give examples. Enough with excuses.


The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to
do things. If there's space for Mapbox, there's space for
OpenStreetMap. But I don't think Snapchat has anything to
do with Facebook.

Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through
Facebook.


___
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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. Dec 2019, at 07:18, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
> 
> I think what many people are suggesting is that the attribution cant be 
> behind an I icon or similar. I have noted that on wider screens the correct 
> attribution is shown but as screen size gets smaller it MAY disappear (to 
> behind the I Icon or similar) on SOME sites or SOME operating systems. I 
> think the size is 600 pixels or thereabouts. Is this the "issue" you really 
> want resolved? Very easy to test on any PC screen. If I rotate my mobile 
> device the full attribution is often there whilst behind some icon in 
> portrait mode.
> 
> This is all up to the developer of the site or app I would suggest, not 
> Mapbox or any other tile provider, who in general provide good documentation 
> spelling out when Open Street Map attribution is required.


actually this kind of attribution is provided by mapbox’s frameworks like 
mapbox-gl-js and if you (as a developer) do not implement your own attribution 
mechanism you will automatically get (comparatively small) OpenStreetMap 
attribution that hides behind an i while the (bigger) mapbox logo in the left 
corner will stay there at any screen width.

WRT an OpenStreetMap provided textmark/icon: this was proposed by mapbox years 
ago and at the time rejected.

Cheers Martin 


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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

It is very carefully worded (re the some attributions) in the following page

https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/


Mapbox wordmark
The Mapbox wordmark is a small image containing the stylized word "Mapbox". It 
typically resides on the bottom left corner of a map. While you may move the 
wordmark to a different corner of the map, we require the Mapbox wordmark to 
appear on our maps so that Mapbox and its maps get proper credit. If you wish 
to otherwise move or remove the Mapbox wordmark, contact Mapbox sales.

Text attribution
The text attribution contains at least three links: © Mapbox, © OpenStreetMap 
and Improve this map. This attribution is strictly required when using the 
Mapbox Streets tileset due to OpenStreetMap's data source ODbL license. Some 
other Mapbox-provided tilesets require additional attribution which is stored 
in the TileJSON of the tileset.

=

I think what many people are suggesting is that the attribution cant be behind 
an I icon or similar. I have noted that on wider screens the correct 
attribution is shown but as screen size gets smaller it MAY disappear (to 
behind the I Icon or similar) on SOME sites or SOME operating systems. I think 
the size is 600 pixels or thereabouts. Is this the "issue" you really want 
resolved? Very easy to test on any PC screen. If I rotate my mobile device the 
full attribution is often there whilst behind some icon in portrait mode.

This is all up to the developer of the site or app I would suggest, not Mapbox 
or any other tile provider, who in general provide good documentation spelling 
out when Open Street Map attribution is required. Maybe OSM needs to develop 
its own "wordmark" and insist that is used instead, but it will face the same 
issues.

To me this also leads to a question - is there some other technical way that 
OSM can ensure attribution when its data is used. The text from Mapbox above 
suggests that in some Mapbox provided tilesets attribution requirements are 
stored in TileJSON for the tileset.

NOTE: - I am no coder, just a OSM editor but I do know that many of these 
'requirements" are easy to avoid so you really are just relying on goodwill 
unless you want to start taking legal action against non compliers. I suspect 
many would want the precious funds that OSMF holds to go to more worthwhile 
causes.

My 2 cents worth

Cheers - Phil


-Original Message-
From: Joseph Eisenberg  
Sent: Sunday, 29 December 2019 3:28 PM
To: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Re: Mapbox's response:

"There are also some customers who have white-labeled in which they don't have 
to provide some attributions."

What does it mean for a customer to have [been] white-labeled? Is this like a 
white-list of customers who have paid extra so that they don't have to 
attribute Mapbox, perhaps? Or am I misunderstanding this phrase?

However, Openstreetmap does not have any exception for certain customers to 
skip attribution because they paid a certain amount to Mapbox or even to the 
OSMF.

Perhaps if many of Mapbox's customers are really unwilling to add attribution, 
we could change the license to allow database users to pay for the privelege of 
not providing appropriate attribution. But right now this is not allowed by the 
current license.

Joseph Eisenberg

Disclosure: I have no personal financial interest in Openstreetmap, though I do 
spend lots of time and some real money on it (internet service fees, new 
laptop, etc), and I sometimes try to get humanitarian organisations and 
businesses here in Indonesia to start using Openstreetmap data, with 
appropriate attribution.

___
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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re: Mapbox's response:

"There are also some customers who have white-labeled in which they
don't have to provide some attributions."

What does it mean for a customer to have [been] white-labeled? Is this
like a white-list of customers who have paid extra so that they don't
have to attribute Mapbox, perhaps? Or am I misunderstanding this
phrase?

However, Openstreetmap does not have any exception for certain
customers to skip attribution because they paid a certain amount to
Mapbox or even to the OSMF.

Perhaps if many of Mapbox's customers are really unwilling to add
attribution, we could change the license to allow database users to
pay for the privelege of not providing appropriate attribution. But
right now this is not allowed by the current license.

Joseph Eisenberg

Disclosure: I have no personal financial interest in Openstreetmap,
though I do spend lots of time and some real money on it (internet
service fees, new laptop, etc), and I sometimes try to get
humanitarian organisations and businesses here in Indonesia to start
using Openstreetmap data, with appropriate attribution.

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

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

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Nuno I searched your attachment for the word "Snap" and it is nowhere to be
found.

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:55 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> Hi Mateusz,
>
>
> They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018, yes
> *2018*. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Have they responded with anything
> (except automatic reply) ?
>
> Is there an assigned issue id?
>
>
> 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:
>
> I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
>
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe, 
> wrote:
>
>
> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via Mapbox), Snapchat
> that is using OSM without attribution requirements (funnily there's plenty
> of space for a reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
> They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to comply over a
> year ago, nor have agreed with the license in every aspect of it when
> stated using OSM data, nor read Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on
> these repeated offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing lists,
> nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
>
> https://map.snapchat.com/
>
> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is going on for over a
> year with these two companies that are corporate members of OSMF and should
> be the first ones to give examples. Enough with excuses.
>
>
> The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do things. If
> there's space for Mapbox, there's space for OpenStreetMap. But I don't
> think Snapchat has anything to do with Facebook.
>
> Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.
>
> ___
> 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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

In your case they went with lying strategy,
in case of my report they simply failed to respond since January 2019.

It is about map on Mapbox own site. There is space for a big Mapbox logo,
OSM attribution is not displayed.

And on large monitors attribution is still not sufficient to cover
"reasonably calculated to make any Person that (...) view (...)  aware that
Content was obtained from the Database (...) and that it is available under 
this License.
(section 4.3 of the Open Database License 
<https://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/> used by OpenStreetMap)

See more info at
https://github.com/matkoniecz/illegal-use-of-OpenStreetMap/blob/master/Mapbox/Mapbox.md#mapbox


29 Dec 2019, 02:48 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:

> mapbox just replied to my ACCIONA Mobility report. the response is 
> unbelievable. 
>
> "> Hi Nuno,
>
> There are some maps that use proprietary data instead of OSM. There are also 
> some customers who have white-labeled in which they don't have to provide 
> some attributions. Unfortunately, we cannot share other customers details 
> here.
>
> If you believe they are violating the OSM or Mapbox attribution, do you mind 
> sharing with me about how you have come with that conclusion?"
>
>
> obviously unless mapbox can explain me how they have my OpenStreetMap 
> contributions, even the trap streets I would love to hear. 
> thank god we have a corporate member of OSMF replying like this.. shame, just 
> SHAME! 
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019, 23:37 Phil Wyatt, <> p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:
>
>>
>> HI Folks,
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> I also generally point folks at this page which is pretty specific (if they 
>> are using Mapbox tiles)
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> From:>>  Nuno Caldeira <>> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> > 
>> Sent:>>  Saturday, 28 December 2019 9:00 AM
>> To:>>  · Michael Medina <>> recycleore...@gmail.com>> >
>> Cc:>>  OpenStreetMap talk mailing list <>> talk@openstreetmap.org>> >
>> Subject:>>  Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> After i contacted the company ACCIONA MOBILITY they finally added 
>> attribution on the app. and it's a new style, vertical. again plenty of 
>> space for Mapbox logo. Maybe we should add vertical attribution on the 
>> attribution guidance. check print here >> https://ibb.co/xLYrP3m
>>
>>
>> On 25/12/2019 19:17, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> doesn't surprise me. check this >>> 
>>> https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/attribution-position/>>>  
>>> plenty of space for visible attribution, well mapbox attribution is not 
>>> hidden under an "i". I have reported another client of theirs that I have 
>>> reached out to ask for attribution, which they understood, but still 
>>> haven't fixed it. let's see if mapbox is in good will. 
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 17:20 · Michael Medina, <>>> 
>>> recycleore...@gmail.com>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on 
>>>> Mapbox’s part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint 
>>>> against Mapbox or deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to 
>>>> go through the regular help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate 
>>>> this issue to their top administrators.  I know the board likes to play 
>>>> nice, but Mapbox isn’t playing nice so no reason to as far as I can tell. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Michael Medina 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06 <>>>> talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org>>>> > 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send talk mailing list submissions to
>>>>>         >>>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>>>>
>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>>>         >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

mapbox just replied to my ACCIONA Mobility report. the response is
unbelievable.

"Hi Nuno,

There are some maps that use proprietary data instead of OSM. There are
also some customers who have white-labeled in which they don't have to
provide some attributions. Unfortunately, we cannot share other customers
details here.

If you believe they are violating the OSM or Mapbox attribution, do you
mind sharing with me about how you have come with that conclusion?"


obviously unless mapbox can explain me how they have my OpenStreetMap
contributions, even the trap streets I would love to hear.
thank god we have a corporate member of OSMF replying like this.. shame,
just SHAME!

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019, 23:37 Phil Wyatt,  wrote:

> HI Folks,
>
>
>
> I also generally point folks at this page which is pretty specific (if
> they are using Mapbox tiles)
>
>
>
> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Nuno Caldeira 
> *Sent:* Saturday, 28 December 2019 9:00 AM
> *To:* · Michael Medina 
> *Cc:* OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
>
>
>
> After i contacted the company ACCIONA MOBILITY they finally added
> attribution on the app. and it's a new style, vertical. again plenty of
> space for Mapbox logo. Maybe we should add vertical attribution on the
> attribution guidance. check print here https://ibb.co/xLYrP3m
>
> On 25/12/2019 19:17, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
>
> doesn't surprise me. check this
> https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/attribution-position/ plenty
> of space for visible attribution, well mapbox attribution is not hidden
> under an "i". I have reported another client of theirs that I have reached
> out to ask for attribution, which they understood, but still haven't fixed
> it. let's see if mapbox is in good will.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 17:20 · Michael Medina, 
> wrote:
>
> As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on
> Mapbox’s part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint
> against Mapbox or deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to
> go through the regular help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate
> this issue to their top administrators.  I know the board likes to play
> nice, but Mapbox isn’t playing nice so no reason to as far as I can tell.
>
>
>
> Michael Medina
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06  wrote:
>
> Send talk mailing list submissions to
> talk@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
>   (Nuno Caldeira)
>
>
> ----------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +
> From: Nuno Caldeira 
> To: Mateusz Konieczny 
> Cc: joost schouppe , OSMF Talk
> , OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
> 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status
> update
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi Mateusz,
>
>
> They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018,
> yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > Have they responded with anything
> > (except automatic reply) ?
> >
> > Is there an assigned issue id?
> >
> >
> > 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:
> >
> > I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
> > mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via
> > Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without attribution
> > requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a
> > reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
> > They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to

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

[Phil Wyatt]

HI Folks,

 

I also generally point folks at this page which is pretty specific (if they are 
using Mapbox tiles)

 

https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Nuno Caldeira  
Sent: Saturday, 28 December 2019 9:00 AM
To: · Michael Medina 
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

After i contacted the company ACCIONA MOBILITY they finally added attribution 
on the app. and it's a new style, vertical. again plenty of space for Mapbox 
logo. Maybe we should add vertical attribution on the attribution guidance. 
check print here https://ibb.co/xLYrP3m

On 25/12/2019 19:17, Nuno Caldeira wrote:

doesn't surprise me. check this 
https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/attribution-position/ plenty of 
space for visible attribution, well mapbox attribution is not hidden under an 
"i". I have reported another client of theirs that I have reached out to ask 
for attribution, which they understood, but still haven't fixed it. let's see 
if mapbox is in good will. 

 

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 17:20 · Michael Medina, mailto:recycleore...@gmail.com> > wrote:

As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on Mapbox’s 
part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint against Mapbox or 
deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to go through the regular 
help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate this issue to their top 
administrators.  I know the board likes to play nice, but Mapbox isn’t playing 
nice so no reason to as far as I can tell. 

 

Michael Medina 

 

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06 mailto:talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Send talk mailing list submissions to
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org> 

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org> 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
  (Nuno Caldeira)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +
From: Nuno Caldeira mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> >
To: Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> 
>
Cc: joost schouppe mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com> 
>, OSMF Talk
mailto:osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org> >, 
OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
    mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status
update
Message-ID: mailto:ea8605f7-ac7d-040e-c38a-f80c2cbc8...@gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Hi Mateusz,


They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018, 
yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed. 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing


On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Have they responded with anything
> (except automatic reply) ?
>
> Is there an assigned issue id?
>
>
> 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> :
>
> I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
>
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
> mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>  
> <mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com <mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>
>
> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via
> Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without attribution
> requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a
> reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
> They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to
> comply over a year ago, nor have agreed with the license
> in every aspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read
> Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated
> offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing
> lists, nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
>
> https://map.snapchat.com/
>
> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is
> going on for over a year with these two companies that are
> corporate members of OSMF and should be the first ones to
> give examples. En

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

After i contacted the company ACCIONA MOBILITY they finally added 
attribution on the app. and it's a new style, vertical. again plenty of 
space for Mapbox logo. Maybe we should add vertical attribution on the 
attribution guidance. check print here https://ibb.co/xLYrP3m


On 25/12/2019 19:17, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
doesn't surprise me. check this 
https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/attribution-position/ 
plenty of space for visible attribution, well mapbox attribution is 
not hidden under an "i". I have reported another client of theirs that 
I have reached out to ask for attribution, which they understood, but 
still haven't fixed it. let's see if mapbox is in good will.


On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 17:20 · Michael Medina, <mailto:recycleore...@gmail.com>> wrote:


As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on
Mapbox’s part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA
complaint against Mapbox or deny them access. The OSM board should
also not have to go through the regular help channel to get
answers. Mapbox should escalate this issue to their top
administrators.  I know the board likes to play nice, but Mapbox
isn’t playing nice so no reason to as far as I can tell.

Michael Medina

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06 mailto:talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Send talk mailing list submissions to
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org>

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specific
than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
      (Nuno Caldeira)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +
From: Nuno Caldeira mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
To: Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>
Cc: joost schouppe mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>>, OSMF Talk
        mailto:osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org>>, OpenStreetMap talk
mailing list
            mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>>
    Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status
        update
Message-ID: mailto:ea8605f7-ac7d-040e-c38a-f80c2cbc8...@gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Hi Mateusz,


They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from
October 2018,
yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to
be fixed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing


On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Have they responded with anything
> (except automatic reply) ?
>
> Is there an assigned issue id?
>
>
> 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com
<mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>:
>
>     I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
>
>     On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
>     mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>
<mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com
<mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>             As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook
company (via
>             Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without
attribution
>             requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a
>             reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo
and text).
>             They probably don't know, nor that they have
been asked to
>             comply over a year ago, nor have agreed with the
license
>             in every aspect of it when stated using OSM
data, nor read
>             Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these
repeated
>             offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing
>             lists, nor that they had a employee that ran for
OSMF board.
>
> https://map.snapchat.com/
>
>             Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend
nothing is
>    

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

[Phil Wyatt]

No worries – I have sent an email to eddie.mo...@cyca.com.au 
<mailto:eddie.mo...@cyca.com.au>  ; genmana...@ryct.org.au 
<mailto:genmana...@ryct.org.au>  and we will see what they say.

 

The map looks to be from OpenMapTiles <https://openmaptiles.com/>  from what I 
can determine

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Mateusz Konieczny  
Sent: Thursday, 26 December 2019 8:38 PM
Cc: 'OpenStreetMap talk mailing list' 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

"Is one click still a lack of attribution?", no but it is almost certainly
an insufficient attribution.

ODBL requires attribution to not be hidden. To quote ODBL it must be

"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 the Database (...) and that it is available 
under this License"

 

I think that this kind of "attribution" as used by Windy.com (that seems to be

source of map embedded on this page) is in a clear violation of this 
requirement.

 

26 Dec 2019, 06:17 by p...@wyatt-family.com <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> :

So how about this map? Is one click still a lack of attribution?

 

https://www.rolexsydneyhobart.com/tracker/

 

From: Nuno Caldeira mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, 26 December 2019 6:17 AM
To: · Michael Medina mailto:recycleore...@gmail.com> >
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

doesn't surprise me. check this 
https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/attribution-position/ plenty of 
space for visible attribution, well mapbox attribution is not hidden under an 
"i". I have reported another client of theirs that I have reached out to ask 
for attribution, which they understood, but still haven't fixed it. let's see 
if mapbox is in good will. 

 

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 17:20 · Michael Medina, mailto:recycleore...@gmail.com> > wrote:

As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on Mapbox’s 
part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint against Mapbox or 
deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to go through the regular 
help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate this issue to their top 
administrators.  I know the board likes to play nice, but Mapbox isn’t playing 
nice so no reason to as far as I can tell. 

 

Michael Medina 

 

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06 mailto:talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Send talk mailing list submissions to

talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> 

 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org> 

 

You can reach the person managing the list at

talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org> 

 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."

 

 

Today's Topics:

 

   1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

  (Nuno Caldeira)

 

 

--

 

Message: 1

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +

From: Nuno Caldeira mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> >

To: Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> 
>

Cc: joost schouppe mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com> 
>, OSMF Talk

    mailto:osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org> >, 
OpenStreetMap talk mailing list

mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> >

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

update

Message-ID: mailto:ea8605f7-ac7d-040e-c38a-f80c2cbc8...@gmail.com> >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

 

Hi Mateusz,

 

 

They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018, 

yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing

 

 

On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

> Have they responded with anything

> (except automatic reply) ?

> 

> Is there an assigned issue id?

> 

> 

> 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> :

> 

> I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.

> 

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,

> mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>  
> <mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com <mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com> >> wrote:

> 

> 

> As an xmas bonus, here's another Faceboo

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

"Is one click still a lack of attribution?", no but it is almost certainly
an insufficient attribution.

ODBL requires attribution to not be hidden. To quote ODBL it must be

"reasonably calculated tomake any Person that uses, views, accesses,
interacts with, or isotherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that
Content wasobtained from the Database (...) and that it is available 
under thisLicense"

I think that this kind of "attribution" as used by Windy.com (that seems to be
source of map embedded on this page) is in a clear violation of this 
requirement.

26 Dec 2019, 06:17 by p...@wyatt-family.com:

>
> So how about this map? Is one click still a lack of attribution?
>
>
>  
>
>
> https://www.rolexsydneyhobart.com/tracker/
>
>
>  
>
>
> From:>  Nuno Caldeira  
> Sent:>  Thursday, 26 December 2019 6:17 AM
> To:>  · Michael Medina 
> Cc:>  OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
> Subject:>  Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
>
>  
>
>
> doesn't surprise me. check this > 
> https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/attribution-position/>  plenty 
> of space for visible attribution, well mapbox attribution is not hidden under 
> an "i". I have reported another client of theirs that I have reached out to 
> ask for attribution, which they understood, but still haven't fixed it. let's 
> see if mapbox is in good will. 
>
>
>  
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 17:20 · Michael Medina, <> recycleore...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on Mapbox’s 
>> part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint against Mapbox 
>> or deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to go through the 
>> regular help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate this issue to 
>> their top administrators.  I know the board likes to play nice, but Mapbox 
>> isn’t playing nice so no reason to as far as I can tell. 
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Michael Medina 
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06 <>> talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send talk mailing list submissions to
>>>         >>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>         >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>         >>> talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>         >>> talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>    1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
>>>       (Nuno Caldeira)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +
>>> From: Nuno Caldeira <>>> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>> >
>>> To: Mateusz Konieczny <>>> matkoni...@tutanota.com>>> >
>>> Cc: joost schouppe <>>> joost.schou...@gmail.com>>> >, OSMF Talk
>>>         <>>> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org>>> >, OpenStreetMap talk mailing 
>>> list
>>>         <>>> talk@openstreetmap.org>>> >
>>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status
>>>         update
>>> Message-ID: <>>> ea8605f7-ac7d-040e-c38a-f80c2cbc8...@gmail.com>>> >
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>
>>> Hi Mateusz,
>>>
>>>
>>> They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018, 
>>> yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed. 
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>> > Have they responded with anything
>>> > (except automatic reply) ?
>>> >
>>> > Is there an assigned issue id?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by >>> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Dec 2019, at 06:20, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
> 
> So how about this map? Is one click still a lack of attribution?


What is your opinion on this, is it acceptable attribution?

Cheers Martin 

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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

So how about this map? Is one click still a lack of attribution?

 

https://www.rolexsydneyhobart.com/tracker/

 

From: Nuno Caldeira  
Sent: Thursday, 26 December 2019 6:17 AM
To: · Michael Medina 
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

doesn't surprise me. check this 
https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/attribution-position/ plenty of 
space for visible attribution, well mapbox attribution is not hidden under an 
"i". I have reported another client of theirs that I have reached out to ask 
for attribution, which they understood, but still haven't fixed it. let's see 
if mapbox is in good will. 

 

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 17:20 · Michael Medina, mailto:recycleore...@gmail.com> > wrote:

As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on Mapbox’s 
part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint against Mapbox or 
deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to go through the regular 
help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate this issue to their top 
administrators.  I know the board likes to play nice, but Mapbox isn’t playing 
nice so no reason to as far as I can tell. 

 

Michael Medina 

 

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06 mailto:talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Send talk mailing list submissions to
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org> 

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org> 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
  (Nuno Caldeira)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +
From: Nuno Caldeira mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> >
To: Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> 
>
Cc: joost schouppe mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com> 
>, OSMF Talk
mailto:osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org> >, 
OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
    mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status
update
Message-ID: mailto:ea8605f7-ac7d-040e-c38a-f80c2cbc8...@gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Hi Mateusz,


They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018, 
yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed. 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing


On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Have they responded with anything
> (except automatic reply) ?
>
> Is there an assigned issue id?
>
>
> 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> :
>
> I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
>
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
> mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>  
> <mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com <mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>
>
> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via
> Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without attribution
> requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a
> reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
> They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to
> comply over a year ago, nor have agreed with the license
> in every aspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read
> Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated
> offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing
> lists, nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
>
> https://map.snapchat.com/
>
> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is
> going on for over a year with these two companies that are
> corporate members of OSMF and should be the first ones to
> give examples. Enough with excuses.
>
>
> The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do
> things. If there's space for Mapbox, there's space for
> OpenStreetMap. But I don't think Snapchat has anything to do
> with Facebook.
>
> Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.
>
-- next part --
An HT

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

doesn't surprise me. check this
https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/attribution-position/ plenty
of space for visible attribution, well mapbox attribution is not hidden
under an "i". I have reported another client of theirs that I have reached
out to ask for attribution, which they understood, but still haven't fixed
it. let's see if mapbox is in good will.

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 17:20 · Michael Medina, 
wrote:

> As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on
> Mapbox’s part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint
> against Mapbox or deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to
> go through the regular help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate
> this issue to their top administrators.  I know the board likes to play
> nice, but Mapbox isn’t playing nice so no reason to as far as I can tell.
>
> Michael Medina
>
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06  wrote:
>
>> Send talk mailing list submissions to
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
>>   (Nuno Caldeira)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +0000
>> From: Nuno Caldeira 
>> To: Mateusz Konieczny 
>> Cc: joost schouppe , OSMF Talk
>> , OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status
>> update
>> Message-ID: 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> Hi Mateusz,
>>
>>
>> They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018,
>> yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed.
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> > Have they responded with anything
>> > (except automatic reply) ?
>> >
>> > Is there an assigned issue id?
>> >
>> >
>> > 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:
>> >
>> > I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
>> >
>> > On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
>> > mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via
>> > Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without attribution
>> > requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a
>> > reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
>> > They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to
>> > comply over a year ago, nor have agreed with the license
>> > in every aspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read
>> > Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated
>> > offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing
>> > lists, nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
>> >
>> > https://map.snapchat.com/
>> >
>> > Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is
>> > going on for over a year with these two companies that are
>> > corporate members of OSMF and should be the first ones to
>> > give examples. Enough with excuses.
>> >
>> >
>> > The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do
>> > things. If there's space for Mapbox, there's space for
>> > OpenStreetMap. But I don't think Snapchat has anything to do
>> > with Facebook.
>> >
>> > Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through
>> Facebook.
>> >
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20191224/e4cbcf8f/attachment.htm
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> End of talk Digest, Vol 184, Issue 39
>> *
>>
> ___
> 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

[· Michael Medina]

As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on Mapbox’s
part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint against
Mapbox or deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to go
through the regular help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate
this issue to their top administrators.  I know the board likes to play
nice, but Mapbox isn’t playing nice so no reason to as far as I can tell.

Michael Medina

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06  wrote:

> Send talk mailing list submissions to
> talk@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
>   (Nuno Caldeira)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +
> From: Nuno Caldeira 
> To: Mateusz Konieczny 
> Cc: joost schouppe , OSMF Talk
>     , OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
> 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status
> update
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi Mateusz,
>
>
> They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018,
> yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > Have they responded with anything
> > (except automatic reply) ?
> >
> > Is there an assigned issue id?
> >
> >
> > 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:
> >
> > I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
> > mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via
> > Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without attribution
> > requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a
> > reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
> > They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to
> > comply over a year ago, nor have agreed with the license
> > in every aspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read
> > Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated
> > offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing
> > lists, nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
> >
> > https://map.snapchat.com/
> >
> > Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is
> > going on for over a year with these two companies that are
> > corporate members of OSMF and should be the first ones to
> > give examples. Enough with excuses.
> >
> >
> > The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do
> > things. If there's space for Mapbox, there's space for
> > OpenStreetMap. But I don't think Snapchat has anything to do
> > with Facebook.
> >
> > Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through
> Facebook.
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20191224/e4cbcf8f/attachment.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> --
>
> End of talk Digest, Vol 184, Issue 39
> *
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

Hi Mateusz,


They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018, 
yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed. 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing



On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Have they responded with anything
(except automatic reply) ?

Is there an assigned issue id?


23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:

I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>> wrote:


As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via
Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without attribution
requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a
reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to
comply over a year ago, nor have agreed with the license
in every aspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read
Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated
offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing
lists, nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.

https://map.snapchat.com/

Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is
going on for over a year with these two companies that are
corporate members of OSMF and should be the first ones to
give examples. Enough with excuses.


The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do
things. If there's space for Mapbox, there's space for
OpenStreetMap. But I don't think Snapchat has anything to do
with Facebook.

Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23 Dec 2019, 19:59 by matkoni...@tutanota.com:

>
>
>
> 23 Dec 2019, 17:59 by joost.schou...@gmail.com:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebookcompany (via Mapbox), 
>>> Snapchat that is using OSM withoutattribution requirements (funnily 
>>> there's plenty of space for areasonable and visible calculated 
>>> mapbox logo and text). Theyprobably don't know, nor that they have 
>>> been asked to complyover a year ago, nor have agreed with the 
>>> license in everyaspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read 
>>> Mapbox TOS, orMapbox been informed on these repeated offenders, nor 
>>> read themultiples reports in mailing lists, nor that they had a 
>>> employeethat ran for OSMF board.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://map.snapchat.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretendnothing is going on for 
>>> over a year with these two companiesthat are corporate members of 
>>> OSMF and should be the first onesto give examples. Enough with 
>>> excuses. 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do things. If 
>> there's space for Mapbox, there's space for OpenStreetMap. But I don't think 
>> Snapchat has anything to do with Facebook.
>>
>> Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.
>>
> It is quite hard to find place where one
> may report this kind of info using email.
>
> I used > pr...@snap.com>  - is anyone aware 
> of any better email address for this kind of reports?
>
I also complained at 

https://support.mapbox.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=36308212

My request was assigned id 77032
according to the automated email.

Has anyone who complained about
Snapchat to Mapbox can check their
inbox archive and share the request id?___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Have they responded with anything
(except automatic reply) ?

Is there an assigned issue id?

23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:

> I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago. 
>
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe, <> joost.schou...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebookcompany (via Mapbox), 
>>> Snapchat that is using OSM withoutattribution requirements (funnily 
>>> there's plenty of space for areasonable and visible calculated 
>>> mapbox logo and text). Theyprobably don't know, nor that they have 
>>> been asked to complyover a year ago, nor have agreed with the 
>>> license in everyaspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read 
>>> Mapbox TOS, orMapbox been informed on these repeated offenders, nor 
>>> read themultiples reports in mailing lists, nor that they had a 
>>> employeethat ran for OSMF board.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://map.snapchat.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretendnothing is going on for 
>>> over a year with these two companiesthat are corporate members of 
>>> OSMF and should be the first onesto give examples. Enough with 
>>> excuses. 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do things. If 
>> there's space for Mapbox, there's space for OpenStreetMap. But I don't think 
>> Snapchat has anything to do with Facebook.
>>
>> Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.
>>___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,  wrote:

>
> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via Mapbox), Snapchat
>> that is using OSM without attribution requirements (funnily there's plenty
>> of space for a reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
>> They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to comply over a
>> year ago, nor have agreed with the license in every aspect of it when
>> stated using OSM data, nor read Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on
>> these repeated offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing lists,
>> nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
>>
>> https://map.snapchat.com/
>>
>> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is going on for over
>> a year with these two companies that are corporate members of OSMF and
>> should be the first ones to give examples. Enough with excuses.
>>
>
> The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do things. If
> there's space for Mapbox, there's space for OpenStreetMap. But I don't
> think Snapchat has anything to do with Facebook.
>
> Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23 Dec 2019, 17:59 by joost.schou...@gmail.com:

>
>
>>
>> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebookcompany (via Mapbox), 
>> Snapchat that is using OSM withoutattribution requirements (funnily 
>> there's plenty of space for areasonable and visible calculated 
>> mapbox logo and text). Theyprobably don't know, nor that they have 
>> been asked to complyover a year ago, nor have agreed with the 
>> license in everyaspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read 
>> Mapbox TOS, orMapbox been informed on these repeated offenders, nor 
>> read themultiples reports in mailing lists, nor that they had a 
>> employeethat ran for OSMF board.
>>
>>
>> https://map.snapchat.com/
>>
>>
>> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretendnothing is going on for 
>> over a year with these two companiesthat are corporate members of 
>> OSMF and should be the first onesto give examples. Enough with 
>> excuses. 
>>
>>
>
> The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do things. If 
> there's space for Mapbox, there's space for OpenStreetMap. But I don't think 
> Snapchat has anything to do with Facebook.
>
> Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.
>
It is quite hard to find place where one
may report this kind of info using email.

I used pr...@snap.com - is anyone aware 
of any better email address for this kind of reports?___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[joost schouppe]

> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via Mapbox), Snapchat
> that is using OSM without attribution requirements (funnily there's plenty
> of space for a reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
> They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to comply over a
> year ago, nor have agreed with the license in every aspect of it when
> stated using OSM data, nor read Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on
> these repeated offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing lists,
> nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
>
> https://map.snapchat.com/
>
> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is going on for over a
> year with these two companies that are corporate members of OSMF and should
> be the first ones to give examples. Enough with excuses.
>

The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do things. If
there's space for Mapbox, there's space for OpenStreetMap. But I don't
think Snapchat has anything to do with Facebook.

Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[stevea]

I respect that, for as far as it goes.  This particular issue is specifically 
called "no code" and for that simple reason alone does not resonate well in 
many minds as "good intersection with GitHub."  Besides, who says a contract 
(license) with GitHub intersects well with OSM and its open-data / open-tools 
philosophy, again?  You?  For this case?  Masses of the silent?

I hear your preference, I doubt it is "masses" either way.  There might be 
significant numbers, though there are significant numbers of wiki authors and 
contributors and have been for the entirety of OSM.  Wiki is not only a 
well-established channel, it may be one of the better or even best ones.  
GitHub?  Mmmm, no, and while it does have its place, it is not as a direct 
substitution for any particular notification or documentation system (these are 
different, true).  As for the wiki "isn't the easiest" OK, thank you for your 
opinion, but I continue to call it "easy."  Very low bar of entry (especially 
as one is already an OSM volunteer), unlike GitHub which requires a separate 
contract (essentially, of adhesion).  I don't have a secret-sauce walkie-talkie 
like you do (and you won't have all of mine, is the point), but we all have 
wiki access built into OSM.

You might be tempted to say "OK, Boomer" and I'd be rightly miffed, but I'd 
prefer to reduce rancor and simply observe, yet again, "yes, both."  Only, not 
a lot of people naturally gravitate to a "non code issue" as GitHub as their 
first go-to, the contradictory nature of that seems clear to me and many.

The wiki, maybe yes, maybe no, (there is wiki, there are others) but yes should 
neither surprise nor annoy, nor does it.

SteveA

> On Dec 22, 2019, at 3:43 PM, Mario Frasca  wrote:
> one voice from the silent mass: I prefer github for such issues.


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

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

[Mario Frasca]

one voice from the silent mass: I prefer github for such issues.


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

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

[stevea]

I wouldn't be so quick to dis our wiki, Guillaume.  Personally, I find it a 
relatively-easy-entry system for plastic, live documentation of a project and 
its data, process and people.  It serves this purpose well even for 
less-than-tech-friendly folk and has for the life of our project.  Wikis can be 
encyclopedic in their scope, yes.  However, building long-term (many years) 
projects out of them is a proven-many-times case.  Wikis accommodate 
fast-moving and slow and steady growth alike.  Color-coded tables often provide 
at-a-glance status.  It isn't hard to copy-and-paste and build things out of 
things, with other people building things, too, meet-ya-in-the-wiki.

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

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

[Guillaume Rischard]

You’re right, the wiki isn’t the easiest place to update and reference to.

I have created https://github.com/grischard/osm-lacking-attribution 
 to register each case as 
an issue. These can be discussed, referenced, searched by label, and hopefully 
closed.

So if you can identify anything where the attribution isn’t correct, please 
post it as an issue there.

Guillaume

> On 20 Dec 2019, at 15:25, Leroy Olivier  wrote:
> 
> Hello, 
> 
> Even if sometimes I fail to follow the topic (due to my poor english) I found 
> that it is an interesting one. I don't have a good idea of what should be 
> done but I slightly disagree with @Numo on this point : 
> 
> @Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i 
> added Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to 
> add companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for 
> years without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
> acknowledge.
> 
> Maybe the wiki is not the better solution but having a way to illustrate the 
> "attribution problem" and keep track of it feel important to me. I don't 
> think  this will solve all the problems but at one point we will need a way 
> to accumulate knowledge and produce some kind of visualization/quantification 
> either to negotiate (or try)  or broadcast it. The wiki is a good beginning 
> how can we improve it ? 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Le ven. 20 déc. 2019 à 14:41, Nuno Caldeira  > a écrit :
> @Rihards Thanks. I will try to do that documentation over the holidays.
> 
> @Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i 
> added Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to 
> add companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for 
> years without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
> acknowledge. 
> 
> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via Mapbox), Snapchat that 
> is using OSM without attribution requirements (funnily there's plenty of 
> space for a reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text). They 
> probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to comply over a year ago, 
> nor have agreed with the license in every aspect of it when stated using OSM 
> data, nor read Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated 
> offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing lists, nor that they had 
> a employee that ran for OSMF board.
> 
> https://map.snapchat.com/ 
> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is going on for over a 
> year with these two companies that are corporate members of OSMF and should 
> be the first ones to give examples. Enough with excuses. 
> 
> 
> 
> Happy holidays.
> 
> 
> 
> Às 09:34 de 20/12/2019, Rihards escreveu:
>> On 20.12.19 09:42, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
>>> hi Pierre,
>>> 
>>> I have tried that route multiple times in twitter, they will ignore. as
>>> they ignore emails (even if you CC le...@osmfoundation.org 
>>> 
>>>  ), the 
>>> license, the mailing list.
>>> if you can read the attribution clearly here let me
>>> know https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1207927051669397504?s=19 
>>> 
>>> this is not manipulated or cropped, straight out of the app. 
>> Nuno, thank you for documenting the attribution concerns.
>> 
>> It is understandable that repeated problems are frustrating. We as OSM
>> contributors see so many of them, and by the hundredth case we perceive
>> them as repeat offenders.
>> I try to remind myself that absolute majority do not do this on purpose,
>> and that my perception should not connect a new case to all the previous
>> ones. It is harder than it might sound :)
>> 
>> Without diving into specifics of each case, it still seems important to
>> have clear documentation on major cases.
>> Have you had a chance to put together a dedicated wiki page about Facebook?
>> It has been repeated in email threads many times, but if a student came
>> around and wanted to put together a research about attribution,
>> copyright and whatnot - would they have an easy time getting a complete
>> picture of Facebook attitude towards OSM attribution?
>> 
>> It would be crucial for that page to be neutral and avoid accusations,
>> even when Occam's razor seems huge and shiny - pure facts would fit
>> there best.
>> 
>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 00:14 Pierre Béland, >> 
>>>  > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Nuno,
>>> 
>>> How can we react positively suggesting to take care obout OSM
>>> attribution ? This is an international media and we can benefit by
>>> having a bit of fun.
>>> 
>>> Plus 

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Nuno,

 

I have added them to the list and also sent them an explanatory email 
requesting an update.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Nuno Caldeira  
Sent: Monday, 23 December 2019 9:44 AM
To: Phil Wyatt ; 'Martin Koppenhoefer' 

Cc: 'Pierre Béland' ; 'OSMF Talk' 
; 'OpenStreetMap talk mailing list' 

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

 

obviously not. their reasonable calculated attribution must be the same as 
requested on ODbL, but seems theirs and their logo (like in Strava app) is 
reasonable calculated than OpenStreetMap.

On 22/12/2019 22:35, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Are you suggesting that is OK or not OK Nuno?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Nuno Caldeira   
 
Sent: Monday, 23 December 2019 8:41 AM
To: Martin Koppenhoefer   

Cc: Pierre Béland   ; OSMF Talk  
 ; 
OpenStreetMap talk mailing list   

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

 

Sadly the board won't do anything. By the way came across this, new way of a 
fixed reasonable calculated Mapbox attribution when you click SHOW/HIDE LEGEND. 
https://www.natureindex.com/collaboration-maps/melbourne

 

On 21/12/2019 20:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 
 
sent from a phone
 

On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira   
 wrote:
 
@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i added 
Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to add 
companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years 
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
acknowledge.

 
 
I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents 
abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to 
respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do 
add attribution when pointed to attribution issues. 
When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore communication 
attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.
 
Cheers Martin 

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

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

obviously not. their reasonable calculated attribution must be the same 
as requested on ODbL, but seems theirs and their logo (like in Strava 
app) is reasonable calculated than OpenStreetMap.


On 22/12/2019 22:35, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Are you suggesting that is OK or not OK Nuno?

Cheers - Phil

*From:*Nuno Caldeira 
*Sent:* Monday, 23 December 2019 8:41 AM
*To:* Martin Koppenhoefer 
*Cc:* Pierre Béland ; OSMF Talk 
; OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 


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

Sadly the board won't do anything. By the way came across this, new 
way of a fixed reasonable calculated Mapbox attribution when you click 
SHOW/HIDE LEGEND. https://www.natureindex.com/collaboration-maps/melbourne


On 21/12/2019 20:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone

On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira  
  wrote:

@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. 
i added Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to 
add companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years 
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
acknowledge.

I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents 
abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to 
respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do 
add attribution when pointed to attribution issues.

When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore 
communication attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.

Cheers Martin

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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Are you suggesting that is OK or not OK Nuno?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Nuno Caldeira  
Sent: Monday, 23 December 2019 8:41 AM
To: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Cc: Pierre Béland ; OSMF Talk ; 
OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

Sadly the board won't do anything. By the way came across this, new way of a 
fixed reasonable calculated Mapbox attribution when you click SHOW/HIDE LEGEND. 
https://www.natureindex.com/collaboration-maps/melbourne

 

On 21/12/2019 20:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 
 
sent from a phone
 

On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira   
 wrote:
 
@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i added 
Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to add 
companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years 
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
acknowledge.

 
 
I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents 
abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to 
respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do 
add attribution when pointed to attribution issues. 
When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore communication 
attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.
 
Cheers Martin 

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

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

Sadly the board won't do anything. By the way came across this, new way 
of a fixed reasonable calculated Mapbox attribution when you click 
SHOW/HIDE LEGEND. https://www.natureindex.com/collaboration-maps/melbourne



On 21/12/2019 20:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira  wrote:

@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i added 
Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to add 
companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years 
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
acknowledge.


I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents 
abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to 
respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do 
add attribution when pointed to attribution issues.
When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore communication 
attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira  wrote:
> 
> @Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i 
> added Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to 
> add companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for 
> years without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
> acknowledge.


I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents 
abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to 
respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do 
add attribution when pointed to attribution issues. 
When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore communication 
attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.

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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

I agree Leroy, it’s a start and allows everyone in the community to see what 
steps have been taken in trying to get a resolution. Maybe the Facebook issue 
(and other conglomerates!) needs its own page to document clearly what has been 
done and what resolution has been the outcome of the various steps. It helps to 
build knowledge for future cases.

 

I had a win with a site after a second contact. That was after doing extra 
research and finding the actual people who maintained the site. The issue was 
then quickly fixed. I am also happy to keep on the issue with companies in my 
own country to ensure they understand the obligations. If they can see that 
other companies have the ability to do the right thing then it shows its not a 
major hassle.

 

Its also useful to know how these people create their sites. It may well be 
that plugins or other web software can be modified to ensure that the 
attribution is always applied (especially in the case of smaller 
organisations). Maybe even OSM endorsed products could help in this respect?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Leroy Olivier  
Sent: Saturday, 21 December 2019 1:25 AM
To: Nuno Caldeira 
Cc: Pierre Béland ; OSMF Talk ; 
OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

Hello, 

 

Even if sometimes I fail to follow the topic (due to my poor english) I found 
that it is an interesting one. I don't have a good idea of what should be done 
but I slightly disagree with @Numo on this point : 

 

@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i added 
Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to add 
companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years 
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
acknowledge. 

 

Maybe the wiki is not the better solution but having a way to illustrate the 
"attribution problem" and keep track of it feel important to me. I don't think  
this will solve all the problems but at one point we will need a way to 
accumulate knowledge and produce some kind of visualization/quantification 
either to negotiate (or try)  or broadcast it. The wiki is a good beginning how 
can we improve it ? 

 

Cheers,

 

 

Le ven. 20 déc. 2019 à 14:41, Nuno Caldeira mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> > a écrit :

@Rihards Thanks. I will try to do that documentation over the holidays.

@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i added 
Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to add 
companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years 
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
acknowledge. 

As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via Mapbox), Snapchat that 
is using OSM without attribution requirements (funnily there's plenty of space 
for a reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text). They probably 
don't know, nor that they have been asked to comply over a year ago, nor have 
agreed with the license in every aspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor 
read Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated offenders, nor read 
the multiples reports in mailing lists, nor that they had a employee that ran 
for OSMF board.

https://map.snapchat.com/

Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is going on for over a year 
with these two companies that are corporate members of OSMF and should be the 
first ones to give examples. Enough with excuses. 

 

Happy holidays.

 

Às 09:34 de 20/12/2019, Rihards escreveu:

On 20.12.19 09:42, Nuno Caldeira wrote:

hi Pierre,
 
I have tried that route multiple times in twitter, they will ignore. as
they ignore emails (even if you CC le...@osmfoundation.org 
 
  ), the 
license, the mailing list.
if you can read the attribution clearly here let me
know https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1207927051669397504?s=19
this is not manipulated or cropped, straight out of the app. 

Nuno, thank you for documenting the attribution concerns.
 
It is understandable that repeated problems are frustrating. We as OSM
contributors see so many of them, and by the hundredth case we perceive
them as repeat offenders.
I try to remind myself that absolute majority do not do this on purpose,
and that my perception should not connect a new case to all the previous
ones. It is harder than it might sound :)
 
Without diving into specifics of each case, it still seems important to
have clear documentation on major cases.
Have you had a chance to put together a dedicated wiki page about Facebook?
It has been repeated in email threads many times, but if a student came
around and wanted to put together a research about attribution,
copyright and whatnot - would they have an easy time getting a complete
picture of Facebook attitude towards 

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

@Rihards Thanks. I will try to do that documentation over the holidays.

@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i 
added Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point 
to add companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there 
for years without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most 
won't ever acknowledge.


As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via Mapbox), Snapchat 
that is using OSM without attribution requirements (funnily there's 
plenty of space for a reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and 
text). They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to comply 
over a year ago, nor have agreed with the license in every aspect of it 
when stated using OSM data, nor read Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed 
on these repeated offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing 
lists, nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.


https://map.snapchat.com/

Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is going on for over 
a year with these two companies that are corporate members of OSMF and 
should be the first ones to give examples. Enough with excuses.



Happy holidays.


Às 09:34 de 20/12/2019, Rihards escreveu:

On 20.12.19 09:42, Nuno Caldeira wrote:

hi Pierre,

I have tried that route multiple times in twitter, they will ignore. as
they ignore emails (even if you CC le...@osmfoundation.org
), the license, the mailing list.
if you can read the attribution clearly here let me
know https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1207927051669397504?s=19
this is not manipulated or cropped, straight out of the app.

Nuno, thank you for documenting the attribution concerns.

It is understandable that repeated problems are frustrating. We as OSM
contributors see so many of them, and by the hundredth case we perceive
them as repeat offenders.
I try to remind myself that absolute majority do not do this on purpose,
and that my perception should not connect a new case to all the previous
ones. It is harder than it might sound :)

Without diving into specifics of each case, it still seems important to
have clear documentation on major cases.
Have you had a chance to put together a dedicated wiki page about Facebook?
It has been repeated in email threads many times, but if a student came
around and wanted to put together a research about attribution,
copyright and whatnot - would they have an easy time getting a complete
picture of Facebook attitude towards OSM attribution?

It would be crucial for that page to be neutral and avoid accusations,
even when Occam's razor seems huge and shiny - pure facts would fit
there best.


On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 00:14 Pierre Béland, mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr>> wrote:

 Hi Nuno,

 How can we react positively suggesting to take care obout OSM
 attribution ? This is an international media and we can benefit by
 having a bit of fun.

 Plus this is Christmas coming soon and we need to think positive !

 You could make tweet to https://twitter.com/BBCTwo   + using
 OpenStreetMap logo image (add @OpenStreetMap as who is on the image)
 + url link to facebook article
 saying

 /Merry Christmas from the OpenStreetMap community Happy to /provide
 accurate and detailed maps/ to news medias, governnments, research,
 business, consumers, to respond to disasters, etc.  Dont forget -
 Our New Year Best Wishes to have more impact - OpenStreetMap
 Contributors attribution :)/
 /
 /
 Then you could invite OSM contributors on the discussion lists to
 make it Viral by responding !

 To show OSM diversity, I would be pleased to respond to the tweet.

 /Bonne année, Pierre Béland, du Québec, Canada, fier de supporter
 OpenStreetMap.
 /

 ;)

  
 Pierre



 Le jeudi 19 décembre 2019 18 h 16 min 44 s UTC−5, Nuno Caldeira
 mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
 a écrit :


 here's another lovely example from BBC TWO using Strava (i can spot
 the Mapbox logo, not the reasonable calculated ©OpenStreetMap
 contributors). glad BBC attributed Google properly. they probably
 aren't aware it's OpenStreetMap, if they can't read the attribution
 on Strava
 https://www.facebook.com/413132078795966/posts/2468472903261863/

 On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:59 Nuno Caldeira,
 mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:



 On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:05 Simon Poole, mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote:

 The fair use point just turned up to illustrate that there
 are limits on what we can expect copyright to do for us (aka
 the tweets from private individuals showing a map excerpt
 that Nuno pointed to) and there is no point in getting upset
 over that there are such limitations.

 actually Simon those prints indivuals share on social media is
 sent to 

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Nuno,

 

Can you add Strava to this page?

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Nuno Caldeira  
Sent: Friday, 20 December 2019 10:10 AM
Cc: OSMF Talk ; OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 

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

 

here's another lovely example from BBC TWO using Strava (i can spot the Mapbox 
logo, not the reasonable calculated ©OpenStreetMap contributors). glad BBC 
attributed Google properly. they probably aren't aware it's OpenStreetMap, if 
they can't read the attribution on Strava

https://www.facebook.com/413132078795966/posts/2468472903261863/

 

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:59 Nuno Caldeira, mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:05 Simon Poole, mailto:si...@poole.ch> 
> wrote:

The fair use point just turned up to illustrate that there are limits on what 
we can expect copyright to do for us (aka the tweets from private individuals 
showing a map excerpt that Nuno pointed to) and there is no point in getting 
upset over that there are such limitations. 

actually Simon those prints indivuals share on social media is sent to their 
emails by the company (as someone pointed after you writing). Strava sends 
emails of OSM basemap to their users without attribution. 

I been testing Strava app today and had a couple of laughts TB. tYhere's even 
more interesting stuff we should take notice when doing the attribution 
guidance. they use Google maps on their android app, the routes they display 
clearly isn't from their users (it's not GPS traces as it is impossible to have 
no overlaping traces on mountain regions). I'm sure these routes are from OSM 
and I'm gathering evidence from my contributions that this is OSM data. I will 
get back to it when I get home and record a video with clear evidence that it 
is impossible to be their users GPS trace or Google Maps (as they do not have 
data in that regions). That could only come from OSM and I'm sure as I added 
that data and weekly monitor the editing and their suggested routes sometimes 
overlap the same route as it displayed different versions of OSM data during 
the years. 

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

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

hi Pierre,

I have tried that route multiple times in twitter, they will ignore. as
they ignore emails (even if you CC le...@osmfoundation.org), the license,
the mailing list.
if you can read the attribution clearly here let me know
https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1207927051669397504?s=19 this is
not manipulated or cropped, straight out of the app.

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 00:14 Pierre Béland,  wrote:

> Hi Nuno,
>
> How can we react positively suggesting to take care obout OSM attribution
> ? This is an international media and we can benefit by having a bit of fun.
>
> Plus this is Christmas coming soon and we need to think positive !
>
> You could make tweet to https://twitter.com/BBCTwo   + using
> OpenStreetMap logo image (add @OpenStreetMap as who is on the image) + url
> link to facebook article
> saying
>
> *Merry Christmas from the OpenStreetMap community Happy to provide
> accurate and detailed maps to news medias, governnments, research,
> business, consumers, to respond to disasters, etc.  Dont forget - Our New
> Year Best Wishes to have more impact - OpenStreetMap Contributors
> attribution :)*
>
> Then you could invite OSM contributors on the discussion lists to make it
> Viral by responding !
>
> To show OSM diversity, I would be pleased to respond to the tweet.
>
>
> *Bonne année, Pierre Béland, du Québec, Canada, fier de supporter
> OpenStreetMap.*
>
> ;)
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> Le jeudi 19 décembre 2019 18 h 16 min 44 s UTC−5, Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
> here's another lovely example from BBC TWO using Strava (i can spot the
> Mapbox logo, not the reasonable calculated ©OpenStreetMap contributors).
> glad BBC attributed Google properly. they probably aren't aware it's
> OpenStreetMap, if they can't read the attribution on Strava
> https://www.facebook.com/413132078795966/posts/2468472903261863/
>
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:59 Nuno Caldeira, 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:05 Simon Poole,  wrote:
>
> The fair use point just turned up to illustrate that there are limits on
> what we can expect copyright to do for us (aka the tweets from private
> individuals showing a map excerpt that Nuno pointed to) and there is no
> point in getting upset over that there are such limitations.
>
> actually Simon those prints indivuals share on social media is sent to
> their emails by the company (as someone pointed after you writing). Strava
> sends emails of OSM basemap to their users without attribution.
> I been testing Strava app today and had a couple of laughts TB. tYhere's
> even more interesting stuff we should take notice when doing the
> attribution guidance. they use Google maps on their android app, the routes
> they display clearly isn't from their users (it's not GPS traces as it is
> impossible to have no overlaping traces on mountain regions). I'm sure
> these routes are from OSM and I'm gathering evidence from my contributions
> that this is OSM data. I will get back to it when I get home and record a
> video with clear evidence that it is impossible to be their users GPS trace
> or Google Maps (as they do not have data in that regions). That could only
> come from OSM and I'm sure as I added that data and weekly monitor the
> editing and their suggested routes sometimes overlap the same route as it
> displayed different versions of OSM data during the years.
>
> ___
> 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

[stevea]

I believe Nuno HAS "reacted positively" by his frequent and constructive 
criticism of what he has seen taking place by third parties who use OSM data 
without proper attribution.  I'd have to check, but it seems he has been doing 
this for the better part of a year (maybe longer).

While I don't wish to diminish the light-hearted, holiday-spirited suggestion 
Pierre makes, I can't help but feel it detracts from the seriousness of the 
concerns expressed by Nuno.  I don't think that was Pierre's intent, but it 
could be easy to misinterpret his comments that way.

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

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

[Pierre Béland via talk]

Hi Nuno, 

How can we react positively suggesting to take care obout OSM attribution ? 
This is an international media and we can benefit by having a bit of fun.

Plus this is Christmas coming soon and we need to think positive !
 You could make tweet to https://twitter.com/BBCTwo   + using OpenStreetMap 
logo image (add @OpenStreetMap as who is on the image) + url link to facebook 
article
 saying
Merry Christmas from the OpenStreetMap community Happy to provide accurate and 
detailed maps to news medias, governnments, research, business, consumers, to 
respond to disasters, etc.  Dont forget - Our New Year Best Wishes to have more 
impact - OpenStreetMap Contributors attribution :)
Then you could invite OSM contributors on the discussion lists to make it Viral 
by responding !
To show OSM diversity, I would be pleased to respond to the tweet.

Bonne année, Pierre Béland, du Québec, Canada, fier de supporter OpenStreetMap.

;)
 
Pierre 
 

Le jeudi 19 décembre 2019 18 h 16 min 44 s UTC−5, Nuno Caldeira 
 a écrit :  
 
 here's another lovely example from BBC TWO using Strava (i can spot the Mapbox 
logo, not the reasonable calculated ©OpenStreetMap contributors). glad BBC 
attributed Google properly. they probably aren't aware it's OpenStreetMap, if 
they can't read the attribution on 
Stravahttps://www.facebook.com/413132078795966/posts/2468472903261863/

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:59 Nuno Caldeira,  wrote:



On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:05 Simon Poole,  wrote:
 
The fair use point just turned up to illustrate that there are limits on what 
we can expect copyright to do for us (aka the tweets from private individuals 
showing a map excerpt that Nuno pointed to) and there is no point in getting 
upset over that there are such limitations. 

actually Simon those prints indivuals share on social media is sent to their 
emails by the company (as someone pointed after you writing). Strava sends 
emails of OSM basemap to their users without attribution. I been testing Strava 
app today and had a couple of laughts TB. tYhere's even more interesting stuff 
we should take notice when doing the attribution guidance. they use Google maps 
on their android app, the routes they display clearly isn't from their users 
(it's not GPS traces as it is impossible to have no overlaping traces on 
mountain regions). I'm sure these routes are from OSM and I'm gathering 
evidence from my contributions that this is OSM data. I will get back to it 
when I get home and record a video with clear evidence that it is impossible to 
be their users GPS trace or Google Maps (as they do not have data in that 
regions). That could only come from OSM and I'm sure as I added that data and 
weekly monitor the editing and their suggested routes sometimes overlap the 
same route as it displayed different versions of OSM data during the years. 


___
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 lovely example from BBC TWO using Strava (i can spot the
Mapbox logo, not the reasonable calculated ©OpenStreetMap contributors).
glad BBC attributed Google properly. they probably aren't aware it's
OpenStreetMap, if they can't read the attribution on Strava
https://www.facebook.com/413132078795966/posts/2468472903261863/

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:59 Nuno Caldeira, 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:05 Simon Poole,  wrote:
>
>> The fair use point just turned up to illustrate that there are limits on
>> what we can expect copyright to do for us (aka the tweets from private
>> individuals showing a map excerpt that Nuno pointed to) and there is no
>> point in getting upset over that there are such limitations.
>>
> actually Simon those prints indivuals share on social media is sent to
> their emails by the company (as someone pointed after you writing). Strava
> sends emails of OSM basemap to their users without attribution.
> I been testing Strava app today and had a couple of laughts TB. tYhere's
> even more interesting stuff we should take notice when doing the
> attribution guidance. they use Google maps on their android app, the routes
> they display clearly isn't from their users (it's not GPS traces as it is
> impossible to have no overlaping traces on mountain regions). I'm sure
> these routes are from OSM and I'm gathering evidence from my contributions
> that this is OSM data. I will get back to it when I get home and record a
> video with clear evidence that it is impossible to be their users GPS trace
> or Google Maps (as they do not have data in that regions). That could only
> come from OSM and I'm sure as I added that data and weekly monitor the
> editing and their suggested routes sometimes overlap the same route as it
> displayed different versions of OSM data during the years.
>
>>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 18:05 Simon Poole,  wrote:

> The fair use point just turned up to illustrate that there are limits on
> what we can expect copyright to do for us (aka the tweets from private
> individuals showing a map excerpt that Nuno pointed to) and there is no
> point in getting upset over that there are such limitations.
>
actually Simon those prints indivuals share on social media is sent to
their emails by the company (as someone pointed after you writing). Strava
sends emails of OSM basemap to their users without attribution.
I been testing Strava app today and had a couple of laughts TB. tYhere's
even more interesting stuff we should take notice when doing the
attribution guidance. they use Google maps on their android app, the routes
they display clearly isn't from their users (it's not GPS traces as it is
impossible to have no overlaping traces on mountain regions). I'm sure
these routes are from OSM and I'm gathering evidence from my contributions
that this is OSM data. I will get back to it when I get home and record a
video with clear evidence that it is impossible to be their users GPS trace
or Google Maps (as they do not have data in that regions). That could only
come from OSM and I'm sure as I added that data and weekly monitor the
editing and their suggested routes sometimes overlap the same route as it
displayed different versions of OSM data during the years.

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

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

[Yves]

To be complete, ABC warns XYZ about its obligations toward attribution in a 
page like this one:
https://docs.mapbox.com/vector-tiles/reference/mapbox-streets-v8/#data-sources--updates
Yves ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

warning: not a lawyer

1 Nov 2019, 10:35 by jfri...@yahoo.com:

>> For ABC  I would not have chosen the term “require” from XYZ but they 
>> probably must make them aware 
>> that in the product they are selling there are third party rights 
>> (OpenStreetMap’s copyright) which come 
>> with certain obligations (ODbL).
>>
>
> In my example, OSM copyright doesn't apply to XYZ because it's simply not 
> making a copy of OSM data.
>  The ABC company is taking OSM data and making a copy (map tiles).  It's ABC 
> that is serving the map tiles.
>  It's ABC (and only ABC) that's actually accessing OSM data, so it's ABC (and 
> only ABC) that has any
>  copyright exposure.
>
ABC is making and distributing derivative works of OSM data.

> It's as if I took your famous photograph and made a million prints and then 
> advertised them for sale at stores throughout the world. The stores are not 
> making copies of your photograph... they're just passing
> along information about a product. It's me who would be on the hook for the 
> copyright violation, because
>  it's me who made the copies without right.
>

I think that you mix two things:

(1) Yes, there are some protection for unknowingly distributing materials 
violating copyrights 
(for example exemption from direct and indirect liability of Internet service 
providers and 
other intermediaries in DMCA). I am not sure whatever in your case shops would 
be liable or not -
probably depends on country and whatever your claim for owning copyright was 
credible and
other factors.

(2) In case of one person committing copyright violation/creating derivative 
works
original copyright (and copyright-like restrictions) still apply (though there 
is fun with de minimis,
fair use etc that as usual may or may not apply).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

Às 09:35 de 01/11/2019, Jeffrey Friedl escreveu:

For ABC  I would not have chosen the term “require” from XYZ but they probably 
must make them aware
that in the product they are selling there are third party rights 
(OpenStreetMap’s copyright) which come
with certain obligations (ODbL).

In my example, OSM copyright doesn't apply to XYZ because it's simply not 
making a copy of OSM data.
  The ABC company is taking OSM data and making a copy (map tiles).  It's ABC 
that is serving the map tiles.
  It's ABC (and only ABC) that's actually accessing OSM data, so it's ABC (and 
only ABC) that has any
  copyright exposure.

It's as if I took your famous photograph and made a million prints and then 
advertised them for sale at stores throughout the world. The stores are not 
making copies of your photograph... they're just passing
along information about a product. It's me who would be on the hook for the 
copyright violation, because
  it's me who made the copies without right.

(As a photographer, I've paid attention to US law on copyright, but that lens 
may not really be appropriate
for this thread about attribution, so if I've gotten too far off topic, by all 
means just ignore it. :-D )

     Jeffrey



I think you need to read this to avoid making those statements 
https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html


You are comparing different things and that doesn't make sense at all


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

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

Às 00:54 de 01/11/2019, Jeffrey Friedl escreveu:

In any case, back to the original complaint about Strava, I still have not seen 
an example of OSM-derived
  data currently being presented on Strava without OSM attribution, so again, 
I'm confused as to what
the original complaint is about.



I already showed you several examples. Unless someone is copying my 
contributions to OSM, it's impossible it's not OSM.



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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 1 nov 2019, alle ore 01:54, Jeffrey Friedl  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> I don't see how that can be correct. If company XYZ buys images from company 
> ABC, that ABC created from OSM data, there's no relationship between XYZ and 
> OSM.   Perhaps you're suggesting that the
> terms of use between OSM and ABC requires ABC to require XYZ to attribute


For ABC  I would not have chosen the term “require” from XYZ but they probably 
must make them aware that in the product they are selling there are third party 
rights (OpenStreetMap’s copyright) which come with certain obligations (ODbL).

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Nov 2019, 01:54 by jfri...@yahoo.com:

>> indeed whoever publicly uses OpenStreetMap data has to attribute, it doesn’t 
>> matter whether they get the data directly from the OpenStreetMap-Foundation 
>> or from a third party.
>>
>
> I don't see how that can be correct. If company XYZ buys images from company 
> ABC, that ABC created from OSM data, there's no relationship between XYZ and 
> OSM. 
>
>
They are still using ODBL licenced data and are required to attribute authors 
of data properly.

Are you seriously claiming that ODBL is completely negated by adding sigle
fake company between OSM and real user?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 31 ott 2019, alle ore 14:03, Nuno Caldeira 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> it's their client responsibility for the lack of attribution not mapbox


indeed whoever publicly uses OpenStreetMap data has to attribute, it doesn’t 
matter whether they get the data directly from the OpenStreetMap-Foundation or 
from a third party. Mapbox also does clearly point out that you have to 
attribute OpenStreetMap when using data obtained through them. Where they could 
improve is the attribution in their templates on small screens, when 
OpenStreetMap hides behind an anonymous button while the big mapbox logo is 
kept visible.

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

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

So technically, i can extract frames of a movie at any ammount i want 
and then mix then to recreate a movie. doesn't make sense.


Às 17:56 de 31/10/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
Nuno, this isn't about what the license allows, it's about the law. 
You can't re-write the law. What the law allows it would allow even if 
there was no license at all.
And I would also note that, frankly, the EU is the outlier in this 
respect in having database protections at all (and I would not say 
that even EU database protections would prohibit as small an excerpt 
as a screenshot, though "substantial" is undefined in the Directive). 
The majority of the world does not have database protections, so if 
any analogy is fair, it's a bit of the reverse, with the EU being a 
"database haven".


On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:37 AM Nuno Caldeira 
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:




On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 17:29 Kathleen Lu, mailto:kathleen...@mapbox.com>> wrote:

I'm curious as to the reason for your doubts, Nuno. Are you
aware of case law to the contrary?


I'm just surprised we adopted a license that seems to be useless
in USA, according to corporate interpretation of the license even
if it's for commercial purposes. Seems like we have a public
domain license after all.
Thank god these companies are not Corporate members of OSMF, don't
need to give a good example and neither provide worldwide services.
Reminds me of cruise ship registrations or tax heavens. Seem we
also have license heavens.

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

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

Às 13:54 de 31/10/2019, Robert Kaiser escreveu:


That "fair use" argument is actually pretty interesting and something 
that people often may not think about. IANAL, but I would guess, for 
example, that taking a screenshot of your app or website, which 
includes a map and also does include attribution, and then crop it and 
cut away the attribution incidentally, and use the result as a 
promotional image on social media, may be a case where it would be 
considered "fair use" and therefore attribution claims may never be 
successful due to this exception from copyright law. The specific case 
is just a guess, but things like that should be taken into account 
when we go out and demand attribution on every little tidbit of 
OSM-based imagery we see floating around...
There's not one screenshot in that article and certainly more than one 
in all that profile. So let's be reasonable and not point exceptions 
from common practice by a Corporate Member of OSMF, that should be the 
first to give the example.


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

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

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Nuno, this isn't about what the license allows, it's about the law. You
can't re-write the law. What the law allows it would allow even if there
was no license at all.
And I would also note that, frankly, the EU is the outlier in this respect
in having database protections at all (and I would not say that even EU
database protections would prohibit as small an excerpt as a screenshot,
though "substantial" is undefined in the Directive). The majority of the
world does not have database protections, so if any analogy is fair, it's a
bit of the reverse, with the EU being a "database haven".

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:37 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 17:29 Kathleen Lu,  wrote:
>
>> I'm curious as to the reason for your doubts, Nuno. Are you aware of case
>> law to the contrary?
>>
>
> I'm just surprised we adopted a license that seems to be useless in USA,
> according to corporate interpretation of the license even if it's for
> commercial purposes. Seems like we have a public domain license after all.
> Thank god these companies are not Corporate members of OSMF, don't need to
> give a good example and neither provide worldwide services.
> Reminds me of cruise ship registrations or tax heavens. Seem we also have
> license heavens.
>
>>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 17:29 Kathleen Lu,  wrote:

> I'm curious as to the reason for your doubts, Nuno. Are you aware of case
> law to the contrary?
>

I'm just surprised we adopted a license that seems to be useless in USA,
according to corporate interpretation of the license even if it's for
commercial purposes. Seems like we have a public domain license after all.
Thank god these companies are not Corporate members of OSMF, don't need to
give a good example and neither provide worldwide services.
Reminds me of cruise ship registrations or tax heavens. Seem we also have
license heavens.

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

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

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

I concur with KaiRo that screenshots are likely fair uses under US law (and
IAAL). They are small excerpts of the larger work (the map, or if you are
comparing to the database, even less is copied), the underlying work is
factual, the purpose is to provide an example and there is a good argument
the screenshot is noncommercial, and there is no impact on the market for
the original.

Even before you get to a fair use analysis, I would note that with a
screenshot, there would also be the question of whether the screenshot
contained enough copyrightable subject matter from OSM to be considered
more than *de minimus*. Remember that the US does not have protections for
databases, outside of thin copyright protection for the selection and
arrangement of the database as a whole.

I would also note that I do not think a *screenshot* from a map created
from a geodatabase would be considered "derivative work" under US copyright
law (note that "derivative work" is a defined statutory term, so I'm not
talking about the definition in ODbL). Rather, it would appear to be a
small excerpt.

I'm curious as to the reason for your doubts, Nuno. Are you aware of case
law to the contrary?




On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:13 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> highly doubt that a derivated work from a database that has a notice
> (attribution) required, which was then chopped to be considered under fair
> use. Especially when this is repeated thousand of times.
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 13:56 Robert Kaiser,  wrote:
>
>> Simon Poole schrieb:
>> > It is however important to realize that their are limits to copyright
>> > and that for example lots of the "non-attribution" in the states is
>> > likely permissible fair use under US laws. It would still be good form
>> > to provide attribution, but it isn't something we can enforce and
>> > getting upset about such use is really just a tremendous waste of time.
>>
>> That "fair use" argument is actually pretty interesting and something
>> that people often may not think about. IANAL, but I would guess, for
>> example, that taking a screenshot of your app or website, which includes
>> a map and also does include attribution, and then crop it and cut away
>> the attribution incidentally, and use the result as a promotional image
>> on social media, may be a case where it would be considered "fair use"
>> and therefore attribution claims may never be successful due to this
>> exception from copyright law. The specific case is just a guess, but
>> things like that should be taken into account when we go out and demand
>> attribution on every little tidbit of OSM-based imagery we see floating
>> around...
>>
>> KaiRo
>>
>> ___
>> 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]

highly doubt that a derivated work from a database that has a notice
(attribution) required, which was then chopped to be considered under fair
use. Especially when this is repeated thousand of times.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 13:56 Robert Kaiser,  wrote:

> Simon Poole schrieb:
> > It is however important to realize that their are limits to copyright
> > and that for example lots of the "non-attribution" in the states is
> > likely permissible fair use under US laws. It would still be good form
> > to provide attribution, but it isn't something we can enforce and
> > getting upset about such use is really just a tremendous waste of time.
>
> That "fair use" argument is actually pretty interesting and something
> that people often may not think about. IANAL, but I would guess, for
> example, that taking a screenshot of your app or website, which includes
> a map and also does include attribution, and then crop it and cut away
> the attribution incidentally, and use the result as a promotional image
> on social media, may be a case where it would be considered "fair use"
> and therefore attribution claims may never be successful due to this
> exception from copyright law. The specific case is just a guess, but
> things like that should be taken into account when we go out and demand
> attribution on every little tidbit of OSM-based imagery we see floating
> around...
>
> KaiRo
>
> ___
> 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

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

in theory yes, I have reached mapbox several times of clients of theirs
that are not complying with ODbL or to their terms of service. they either
stop replying, doesn't get fixed (Strava example) or gets fix after sending
9 emails during two months. this last example was regarding Livestream, a
Vimeo company that even replied to me stating they weren't using OSM (when
they were using Mapbox Street tiles without the reasonable calculated
Mapbox logo, so I assume they were premium clients or whatever they call it
at mapbox. had to explain that that doesn't not entitle them not to
attribute OSM. his has been shared on other threads on mailing lists.

As Kathleen mentioned on other topics, including this one, it's their
client responsibility for the lack of attribution not mapbox. end result of
all this, no ones fault and everything remains the same.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 11:43 Jeffrey Friedl,  wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > do a search for Strava on social media images, on twitter as examples:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/MissJKirby/status/1189164486252515333?s=09
>
> Ah, I see, I thought you were referencing a screenshot from the app, but
> that
> seems to be an image made explicitly for posting on Twitter. One imagines
> that
> Strava hasn't built a map renderer just to make Twitter images, so
> probably the
> images are sourced from somewhere (Mapbox, Google, etc.).  If the
> underlying
> data originates from OSM, someone indeed should be putting the attribution.
>
> > following your mindset, we should blame the map provider (Mapbox) and
> not the company that uses the maps.
>
> I don't know that it's a "mindset". The person using OSM data has the
> responsibility to attribute, no?
>
> If Mapbox is not putting attributions, it would be a surprise.  Can you
> show a specific example where
>  Mapbox is providing OSM-derived maps without attribution? (If it's not
> apparent from the example
> that it's Mapbox providing OSM-derived maps, please be sure to cite your
> evidence that that's what
> we're seeing).
>
>Jeffrey
>
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Simon Poole]

The problem with this thread is that it is conflating different (but a
bit related) things.

- missing or less than perfect attribution,

- corporate messaging about OpenStreetMap (or more the lack of it).

As to the first point in general we are just arguing about the form, not
the principle. We have only one case that I'm aware of, in which a
publisher is claiming that they do not need to provide attribution, and
we are pursing that with legal means.

It is however important to realize that their are limits to copyright
and that for example lots of the "non-attribution" in the states is
likely permissible fair use under US laws. It would still be good form
to provide attribution, but it isn't something we can enforce and
getting upset about such use is really just a tremendous waste of time.

As to the 2nd point, yes it might be annoying that we don't get more
positive corporate messaging around the use of OpenStreetMap,
particularly when the companies in question wouldn't actually exist
without OSM, but it isn't a legal or attribution question and should be
kept separate.  Relying on third parties that are mainly beholden to
money to do messaging on our behalf is a very bad idea in any case, the
responsibility for positive messaging is clearly part of the remit of
the OSMF.

Simon

Am 31.10.2019 um 10:41 schrieb Nuno Caldeira:
> do a search for Strava on social media images, on twitter as examples:
>
> https://twitter.com/MissJKirby/status/1189164486252515333?s=09
>
> https://twitter.com/boorapong88/status/1188767309357142016?s=09
>
> https://twitter.com/dai_walters/status/1188488659089141760?s=09
>
> só either everyone crops the image or there's something wrong. 
>
>
> following your mindset, we should blame the map provider (Mapbox) and
> not the company that uses the maos. Does this apply to Facebook too?
> As Mapbox is a corporate member of OSMF and several employees of
> theirs are members of board or working groups, that shouldn't be to
> hard to fix the lack of attribution, right? 
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 09:28 Jeffrey Friedl,  > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > And the hypocrisy goes on. "Strava launches gorgeous new
> outdoor maps"
> 
> https://blog.mapbox.com/strava-launches-gorgeous-new-outdoor-maps-977c74cf37f9
> >
> >    I'm not sure what you're reporting, but the maps all have "©
> Mapbox © OpenStreetMap" in the lower-left
> >    corner.  (Perhaps they were cut off in some of the
> screenshots in news coverage, but the actual maps in
> >    the Strava app and on their web site all have this
> attribution.)  I suppose that they could use a slightly
> >    stronger background shadow, to create more contrast when the
> map behind the attribution is light.
> >
> >
> > that is not true.
>
> WHAT is not true? Why can't you be specific?
>
> > https://twitter.com/mastermen/status/1127672128797663239?s=09
>
> That's a half year ago, showing an edited screen capture. What
> relevence is to this discussion?
>
> > from the moment they use OSM they agreed with it's terms
>
> "They" being Strava?  I don't beleve that Strava uses, or has ever
> used, OSM data.
> I'm pretty sure that Strava is a customer of Mapbox, and it's
> *Mapbox* that uses OSM data
> and generates images that Strava displays.  If Mapbox is not
> putting attributions properly,
> complain to/about them.
>
>     Jeffrey
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Nuno Caldeira]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 10:25 Jeffrey Friedl,  wrote:

> This thread started with "the hypocrocy continues",
> but I can't figure out what, exactly, anyone is complaining about.
>

no attribution and a barely readable attribution by a corporate member of
OSMF. that's what the hypocrocy is all about.

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

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

do a search for Strava on social media images, on twitter as examples:

https://twitter.com/MissJKirby/status/1189164486252515333?s=09

https://twitter.com/boorapong88/status/1188767309357142016?s=09

https://twitter.com/dai_walters/status/1188488659089141760?s=09

só either everyone crops the image or there's something wrong.


following your mindset, we should blame the map provider (Mapbox) and not
the company that uses the maos. Does this apply to Facebook too? As Mapbox
is a corporate member of OSMF and several employees of theirs are members
of board or working groups, that shouldn't be to hard to fix the lack of
attribution, right?

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 09:28 Jeffrey Friedl,  wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > > And the hypocrisy goes on. "Strava launches gorgeous new outdoor maps"
> https://blog.mapbox.com/strava-launches-gorgeous-new-outdoor-maps-977c74cf37f9
> >
> >I'm not sure what you're reporting, but the maps all have "© Mapbox ©
> OpenStreetMap" in the lower-left
> >corner.  (Perhaps they were cut off in some of the screenshots in
> news coverage, but the actual maps in
> >the Strava app and on their web site all have this attribution.)  I
> suppose that they could use a slightly
> >stronger background shadow, to create more contrast when the map
> behind the attribution is light.
> >
> >
> > that is not true.
>
> WHAT is not true? Why can't you be specific?
>
> > https://twitter.com/mastermen/status/1127672128797663239?s=09
>
> That's a half year ago, showing an edited screen capture. What relevence
> is to this discussion?
>
> > from the moment they use OSM they agreed with it's terms
>
> "They" being Strava?  I don't beleve that Strava uses, or has ever used,
> OSM data.
> I'm pretty sure that Strava is a customer of Mapbox, and it's *Mapbox*
> that uses OSM data
> and generates images that Strava displays.  If Mapbox is not putting
> attributions properly,
> complain to/about them.
>
> Jeffrey
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 02:15 Jeffrey Friedl,  wrote:

> > And the hypocrisy goes on. "Strava launches gorgeous new outdoor maps"
> https://blog.mapbox.com/strava-launches-gorgeous-new-outdoor-maps-977c74cf37f9
>
> I'm not sure what you're reporting, but the maps all have "© Mapbox ©
> OpenStreetMap" in the lower-left
> corner.  (Perhaps they were cut off in some of the screenshots in news
> coverage, but the actual maps in
> the Strava app and on their web site all have this attribution.)  I
> suppose that they could use a slightly
> stronger background shadow, to create more contrast when the map behind
> the attribution is light.
>

*that is not
true. https://twitter.com/mastermen/status/1127672128797663239?s=09
*
*I have reported that to them and obviously didn't get a reply from their
side. *
*from the moment they use OSM they agreed with it's terms and the
reasonable calculated notice (which they don't have on the example of the
Medium article 8 shared). a corporate member of OSMF not knowing and not
complying with the attribution is a bad example. *
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Not that I've heard (I don't think that was ever the case), but 1000s of
notes about FB on OSM sounds terrible to me - they would only add noise for
mappers who check notes for things to fix, and some editors show notes in
the interface. My understanding is that FB *is* fixing whatever errors get
reported to them, so isn't it better for them to do all that work?

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 11:44 PM Rihards  wrote:

> On 10.09.19 03:12, Kathleen Lu via osmf-talk wrote:
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018_11_15#Facebook_update
>
> A good example of "always assume the best intents" :)
>
> Kathleen, please note that this is about reports going to DWG - that is
> indeed inappropriate.
> Have we seen FB reports going into OSM notes, and negative effects from
> that?
>
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:47 PM Nuno Caldeira
> > mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > I was not aware of that. Is that information public or been
> > published somewhere? Also what does it do? notes for OpenStreetMap
> > or the so called "Facebook maps"?
> >
> > Às 19:33 de 09/09/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira
> >>  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they
> >> have a report button, which i thought would create a note on
> >> OSM. Oh i was wrong, no note on OSM, wonder where that report
> >> will go to.
> >>
> >>
> >> ??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG complained to Facebook about too
> >> many reports from Facebook users going to OSM and DWG, and asked
> >> Facebook for cooperation in re-directing those? (which as I
> >> understand was accomplished)
> >> It would be terrible for the report button to create a note on
> OSM.--
>  Rihards
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/09/2019 01:19, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
oh good. strange that we still get email complains about Instagram 
users of their address being on OSM, when it's not.
 so we have Facebook number, mind asking the number so we can call to 
ask to comply with the attribution?


We (the DWG) certainly get far less direct mail than we did when 
Instagram's report button sent an email _directly_ to the DWG.  We still 
get complaints about data on Facebook maps every now and again, but far 
fewer than we used to.  The complaints tend to be one of "map is old", 
"map is wrong" or "map is showing personal information that it 
shouldn't".  In most or all of these cases the problem isn't related to 
OSM as it currently is at all but to either:


 * data shown on top of an OSM or non-OSM basemap (such as Facebook's
   "places" data),

 * the data, even when it did come from OSM in the past,  just not
   being up to date.

You can also see questions like this at https://help.openstreetmap.org/ 
, such as 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/70532/the-wrong-map-on-face-book 
(in that example I mentioned the help question to someone from Facebook 
on https://osmus.slack.com/ , and someone else from Facebook was able to 
answer it directly).


Seperately to the DWG mails, quite a lot of the traffic to OSM's DMCA 
email address concerns Facebook, but most of these messages are from 
people who have (putting it charitably) misunderstood the purpose of the 
DMCA form - they're not really actionable by anyone.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)


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

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

oh good. strange that we still get email complains about Instagram users of
their address being on OSM, when it's not.
 so we have Facebook number, mind asking the number so we can call to ask
to comply with the attribution?

A terça, 10/09/2019, 01:13, Kathleen Lu  escreveu:

>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018_11_15#Facebook_update
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:47 PM Nuno Caldeira 
> wrote:
>
>> I was not aware of that. Is that information public or been published
>> somewhere? Also what does it do? notes for OpenStreetMap or the so called
>> "Facebook maps"?
>> Às 19:33 de 09/09/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira <
>> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have a
>>> report button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i was wrong,
>>> no note on OSM, wonder where that report will go to.
>>>
>>
>> ??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG complained to Facebook about too many
>> reports from Facebook users going to OSM and DWG, and asked Facebook for
>> cooperation in re-directing those? (which as I understand was accomplished)
>> It would be terrible for the report button to create a note on OSM.
>>
>>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018_11_15#Facebook_update



On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:47 PM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> I was not aware of that. Is that information public or been published
> somewhere? Also what does it do? notes for OpenStreetMap or the so called
> "Facebook maps"?
> Às 19:33 de 09/09/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have a
>> report button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i was wrong,
>> no note on OSM, wonder where that report will go to.
>>
>
> ??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG complained to Facebook about too many
> reports from Facebook users going to OSM and DWG, and asked Facebook for
> cooperation in re-directing those? (which as I understand was accomplished)
> It would be terrible for the report button to create a note on OSM.
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Nuno Caldeira]

I was not aware of that. Is that information public or been published 
somewhere? Also what does it do? notes for OpenStreetMap or the so 
called "Facebook maps"?


Às 19:33 de 09/09/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:



On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira 
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have
a report button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i
was wrong, no note on OSM, wonder where that report will go to.


??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG complained to Facebook about too 
many reports from Facebook users going to OSM and DWG, and asked 
Facebook for cooperation in re-directing those? (which as I understand 
was accomplished)

It would be terrible for the report button to create a note on OSM.

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

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

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have a report
> button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i was wrong, no note
> on OSM, wonder where that report will go to.
>

??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG complained to Facebook about too many
reports from Facebook users going to OSM and DWG, and asked Facebook for
cooperation in re-directing those? (which as I understand was accomplished)
It would be terrible for the report button to create a note on OSM.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9 Sep 2019, 15:58 by si...@poole.ch :

> Look I'm sorry that the ODbL is not contact poison.
>
Maybe I missed it, but is anyone proposing
this or wishing for it?___
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:
> >>> And what happens if one of the data sources has a hard visible
> >>> attribution requirement without the OSMF 'attribution light'
> >>> liberty? As you drafted things it would be perfectly all right to
> >>> bury OSM attribution on the bottom of some general credits page
> >>> while prominently attributing some other source because this was
> >>> required while the OSMF settled for less.
> >>
> >> Where does the draft say that?
> >
> > The shoe is on the other foot - where does the guideline draft say
> > that the permission to show OSM attribution only on a separate page
> > under certain conditions depends on no other data source being
> > attributed more prominently?
>
> Why should it? There is no such requirement in the ODbL. I suspect
> you are confusing CC BY-SA attribution requirements with those of the
> ODbL.

Frankly Simon, this is now getting somewhat annoying.  I have asked as 
cited above:

> And what happens if one of the data sources has a hard visible
> attribution requirement without the OSMF 'attribution light'
> liberty?

The correct answer would have been:  It would according to the guideline 
in a <50 percent OSM data case be perfectly allowable to show the 
attribution for other sources (no matter what percentage they account 
for) in a form that is immediately visible without user interaction and 
to show OSM attribution "on a separate page that is visible after user 
interaction".

Instead of acknowledging that you deflect by first asking "Where does it 
say A" and then essentially asking "Why should it say NOT(A)" and 
finally accusing me of not understanding what i am talking about.

I don't really mind and can accept that but this is ultimately not a 
productive way to perform a community consultation like this.  This is 
not the LWG explaining the guideline as a done deal to 'confused' 
community members like me, this is about listening and taking seriously 
the concerns of the community, getting a broader perspective on matters 
and integrating the results of the ensuing arguments into the draft.  
Granted i have not made this easy with my emphatic rejection of the 
basic premises of the document.  I completely understand if you don't 
want to argue with me on that basis but if you do i expect to be taken 
seriously and my arguments being reasoned with and not being dismissed 
upfront as unqualified or confused.

-- 
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]

Am 09.09.2019 um 14:16 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>>> And what happens if one of the data sources has a hard visible
>>> attribution requirement without the OSMF 'attribution light'
>>> liberty? As you drafted things it would be perfectly all right to
>>> bury OSM attribution on the bottom of some general credits page
>>> while prominently attributing some other source because this was
>>> required while the OSMF settled for less.
>> Where does the draft say that?
> The shoe is on the other foot - where does the guideline draft say that 
> the permission to show OSM attribution only on a separate page under 
> certain conditions depends on no other data source being attributed 
> more prominently?

Why should it? There is no such requirement in the ODbL. I suspect you
are confusing CC BY-SA attribution requirements with those of the ODbL.


> None of your two formulation drafts shown here states anything in that 
> direction:
>
> /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. /
>
> /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./
>



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]

Look I'm sorry that the ODbL is not contact poison.

It is a, in some ways very permissive (so permissive that it isn't even
compatible with the CC BY licenses), open licence with some share-alike
aspects.

The ODbL allows creating extracts of all kinds, vertical, horizontal,
our guidelines ensure,

- that data extracted remains ODbL licenced,

- that third party data that is used in conjunction with OSM data in a
Collective Database remains cleanly separable,

- that OSM data is useful for the sector in general in that it is usable
in similar ways to other datasets if the other prerequisites are fulfilled,

- that the OSM specifics of the database (for example that we are
continuously producing new versions) can't be gamed to make the data
unusable,

- that the best way to fulfil SA obligations is to improve the original
dataset (strictly spoken this is actually a bit at odds with the ODbL),

and last, but not least, that the attribution guideline when it is
finalised is clearer than the current guidance  and helps us massively
reduce unattributed use of OSM data.

Simon

Am 09.09.2019 um 14:14 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>> Am 09.09.2019 um 12:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
>>> Existing guidelines allow a lot of things that are clearly not
>>> allowed by the ODbL itself in terms of share-alike (like the
>>> regional cuts concept for example).
>> That statement is completely wrong. [...]
> I disagree.  And in any case - it does not matter, the regional cuts 
> were used just as an example.  I could likewise have used the 
> horizontal layers as an example in my argument.  And surely you could 
> for those equally present an interpretation of the ODbL that justifies 
> those.
>
> My point is not that you cannot interpret the ODbL in a way that allows 
> all this.  This is what corporate lawyers do and what they are good at. 
> My point is that within the spectrum of possible interpretations of the 
> ODbL all of this is on the far side of leniency and the OSMF - w.r.t. 
> share-alike - has already moved their frame of refrence of what is the 
> appropriate/neutral interpretation very far in that direction.
>
> And i strongly advise you not to do the same for attribution because you 
> are playing with fire here regarding the social cohesion of the 
> project.
>
>>> [...] If you disagree please list cases where commercial OSM data
>>> users have published derivative databases.
>> There is no requirement to publish derivative databases, only a
>> requirement to make them available to recipients of such databases
>> and Produced Works created from them.
> So your argument is that using derivative databases is common practice 
> and map producers routinely make them available to the users of their 
> maps.  But none of this is visible in public because the recipients do 
> not distribute them despite them being available under the ODbL as the 
> license requires?
>
> I am not convinced.
>
> For clarity i repeat and clarify my statement:  Share-alike is 
> functionally dead in the world of commercial OSM map rendering.  Map 
> producers universally route around it - or at least claim to route 
> around it and their claims are not challenged.  If you disagree then 
> show me the derivative databases.
>
>> It doesn't change the license at all, in general the guidance is more
>> -strict- than current practice, with the exception of the multiple
>> source case where there currently isn't any guidance at all.
> So you are essentially saying that commercial OSM data users with their 
> blatant ignorance of the requirements of the license have successfully 
> moved what is considered normal in the eyes of the OSMF so they have 
> adjusted their own frame of reference for what they may expect from 
> data users.
>



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]

Just as a general comment and data point on the "the OSMF is scumbling
to commercial interests and throwing the licence out of the window"
narrative.

Ever noticed that while there are lots and lots of sites of all kinds
that use OSM derived base maps and the road network for routing, there
is essentially no use of OSM POI data outside of sites/apps that are
100% OSM based?

Now I realize that our US colleagues won't be able to relate to this,
but there are many regions and areas of the world where OSM POI data is
at a similar level as google, and in breadth clearly better than any
single other commercial POI data provider.

So why doesn't OSM POI data get used at all? Given that there obviously
would be money to be saved here?

Because the name of the game in this specific niche of the business is
merging and de-duplicating datasets of different provenance to get as
complete as possible data, and that is  simply not possible at the kind
of granularity that would be required with OSM data due to the licence. 
From discussions that I've had with typical aggregators of such data it
is clear to them that they can't and won't touch OSM data with even a
very long pole. Has anybody suggested that we give up our
no-deduplication rules, even though it would obviously be very
convenient and lead to more widespread use of OSM data? No.

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> >
> > And what happens if one of the data sources has a hard visible
> > attribution requirement without the OSMF 'attribution light'
> > liberty? As you drafted things it would be perfectly all right to
> > bury OSM attribution on the bottom of some general credits page
> > while prominently attributing some other source because this was
> > required while the OSMF settled for less.
>
> Where does the draft say that?

The shoe is on the other foot - where does the guideline draft say that 
the permission to show OSM attribution only on a separate page under 
certain conditions depends on no other data source being attributed 
more prominently?

None of your two formulation drafts shown here states anything in that 
direction:

/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. /

/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./

-- 
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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> Am 09.09.2019 um 12:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> > Existing guidelines allow a lot of things that are clearly not
> > allowed by the ODbL itself in terms of share-alike (like the
> > regional cuts concept for example).
>
> That statement is completely wrong. [...]

I disagree.  And in any case - it does not matter, the regional cuts 
were used just as an example.  I could likewise have used the 
horizontal layers as an example in my argument.  And surely you could 
for those equally present an interpretation of the ODbL that justifies 
those.

My point is not that you cannot interpret the ODbL in a way that allows 
all this.  This is what corporate lawyers do and what they are good at. 
My point is that within the spectrum of possible interpretations of the 
ODbL all of this is on the far side of leniency and the OSMF - w.r.t. 
share-alike - has already moved their frame of refrence of what is the 
appropriate/neutral interpretation very far in that direction.

And i strongly advise you not to do the same for attribution because you 
are playing with fire here regarding the social cohesion of the 
project.

> > [...] If you disagree please list cases where commercial OSM data
> > users have published derivative databases.
>
> There is no requirement to publish derivative databases, only a
> requirement to make them available to recipients of such databases
> and Produced Works created from them.

So your argument is that using derivative databases is common practice 
and map producers routinely make them available to the users of their 
maps.  But none of this is visible in public because the recipients do 
not distribute them despite them being available under the ODbL as the 
license requires?

I am not convinced.

For clarity i repeat and clarify my statement:  Share-alike is 
functionally dead in the world of commercial OSM map rendering.  Map 
producers universally route around it - or at least claim to route 
around it and their claims are not challenged.  If you disagree then 
show me the derivative databases.

> It doesn't change the license at all, in general the guidance is more
> -strict- than current practice, with the exception of the multiple
> source case where there currently isn't any guidance at all.

So you are essentially saying that commercial OSM data users with their 
blatant ignorance of the requirements of the license have successfully 
moved what is considered normal in the eyes of the OSMF so they have 
adjusted their own frame of reference for what they may expect from 
data users.

-- 
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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

"Gib jemandem den kleinen Finger und er nimmt die ganze Hand":

"Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."

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

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

[Simon Poole]

Am 09.09.2019 um 12:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann:

>
> Existing guidelines allow a lot of things that are clearly not allowed 
> by the ODbL itself in terms of share-alike (like the regional cuts 
> concept for example). 

That statement is completely wrong. What is correct is that the
limitation of such extracts to country size is rather arbitrary, but
that was erring on the side of caution because at increasing smaller
sizes you start getting in to issues with if the resulting extract is
still a database in its own right. But there is nothing at all in the
ODbL that wouldn't in principle allow smaller extracts to be used in
collective databases.

>  They are clearly designed to err on the side of 
> leniency for the data users.  This has been largely accepted by the 
> community because it waives rights the OSMF would have under the ODbL 
> in cases where insisting on them would have relatively little benefit 
> for the project itself (although you could of course still argue that 
> there would be benefit for the open geodata community in general).  But 
> as a result today share-alike in the ODbL is essentially functionally 
> dead.  There are still cases where share-alike is clearly required but 
> almost everyone routes around them.  If you disagree please list cases 
> where commercial OSM data users have published derivative databases.

There is no requirement to publish derivative databases, only a
requirement to make them available to recipients of such databases and
Produced Works created from them.

> Commercial data users (and i am unfairly generalizing here of course) 
> have been answering this extreme generosity in a "Gib jemandem den 
> kleinen Finger und er nimmt die ganze Hand" kind of way when it comes 
> to attribution in particular.  That is to be expected from 
> organizations whose main objective is to maximize short term profits at 
> all costs.  You can be certain that the same approach will be taken 
> with an attribution guideline.  Any loophole in the suggestions 
> presented will be examined for the potential advantages it gives in the 
> most excessive possible interpretation of the text.  
>
> This is why i am strongly opposing the current draft because it pokes 
> additional holes into the license while what it should do is putting a 
> sign on aspects that might be perceived to be loopholes in the license 
> itself with a clear message of: Here the safe terrain ends, we strongly 
> suggest you don't go there if you don't want to get in legal trouble or 
> potentially face the wrath of hundreds of thousands of OSM contributors 
> and supporters.

It doesn't change the license at all, in general the guidance is more
-strict- than current practice, with the exception of the multiple
source case where there currently isn't any guidance at all.

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Kathleen has already touched on this, but one more time. In general
> the guidelines work as safe harbours, that is if somebody follows the
> guidelines in good faith they can assume that they are doing
> something we're reasonably happy with.

I am sorry but no, that is a complete distortion of the previous 
discussion.  I have been the one who called for guidelines which err on 
the side of caution and make recommendations for how data users can be 
sure they safely meet the license requirements.  Kathleen has rejected 
this approach by painting in dark colors various perceived 
disadvantages should the guidelines suggest anything that might not 
absolutely be necessary from the ODbL itself.

Existing guidelines allow a lot of things that are clearly not allowed 
by the ODbL itself in terms of share-alike (like the regional cuts 
concept for example).  They are clearly designed to err on the side of 
leniency for the data users.  This has been largely accepted by the 
community because it waives rights the OSMF would have under the ODbL 
in cases where insisting on them would have relatively little benefit 
for the project itself (although you could of course still argue that 
there would be benefit for the open geodata community in general).  But 
as a result today share-alike in the ODbL is essentially functionally 
dead.  There are still cases where share-alike is clearly required but 
almost everyone routes around them.  If you disagree please list cases 
where commercial OSM data users have published derivative databases.

Commercial data users (and i am unfairly generalizing here of course) 
have been answering this extreme generosity in a "Gib jemandem den 
kleinen Finger und er nimmt die ganze Hand" kind of way when it comes 
to attribution in particular.  That is to be expected from 
organizations whose main objective is to maximize short term profits at 
all costs.  You can be certain that the same approach will be taken 
with an attribution guideline.  Any loophole in the suggestions 
presented will be examined for the potential advantages it gives in the 
most excessive possible interpretation of the text.  

This is why i am strongly opposing the current draft because it pokes 
additional holes into the license while what it should do is putting a 
sign on aspects that might be perceived to be loopholes in the license 
itself with a clear message of: Here the safe terrain ends, we strongly 
suggest you don't go there if you don't want to get in legal trouble or 
potentially face the wrath of hundreds of thousands of OSM contributors 
and supporters.

-- 
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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 09 September 2019, 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).

I have explained already a month ago that putting the OSM attribution 
requirement on the same level as other data source attributions is 
being fairly cavalier with the role of attribution for the social 
cohesion of the OSM community.  Practically 8 of these 10 data sources 
are produced by people who are getting paid for their work.  About half 
of them have no attribution requirement in the license and maybe 2 or 3 
of them are just cheaper to license if you accept an attribution 
requirement - which brings the whole thing on the level of bargaining 
for advertisement space.

And what happens if one of the data sources has a hard visible 
attribution requirement without the OSMF 'attribution light' liberty?  
As you drafted things it would be perfectly all right to bury OSM 
attribution on the bottom of some general credits page while 
prominently attributing some other source because this was required 
while the OSMF settled for less.

And in any case there are tons of ways to present a lot of different 
data sources to a map user in a way that makes them aware of these 
sources without being misleading.  Just look how the advertisement 
industry does it.  This is not about making OSM data use possible where 
it would otherwise not be - this is about profit margins in the 
attention economy.

-- 
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]

Am 09.09.2019 um 02:03 schrieb 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.

I fully agree with the above, but it is not a legal argument that can be
used in interpreting the consequences and requirements of our
distribution licence.

And may I add, requiring grossly inaccurate attribution doesn't actually
help with any of our issues.

>
> 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.
The draft guideline doesn't say anything else. It simply tries to
address the edge case where there is limited space and OSM is not the
dominant data source and attributing everything to OSM would be
confusing and inappropriate.
>
> 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.

Kathleen has already touched on this, but one more time. In general the
guidelines work as safe harbours, that is if somebody follows the
guidelines in good faith they can assume that they are doing something
we're reasonably happy with. That does not mean that the guidelines
change the licence and that attribution solutions that do not conform to
our guidelines would automatically be licence violations. In a legal
conflict, while our guidelines would surely be considered, if they are
loaded with restrictions that are not actually present and founded in
the licence they would likely not hold much weight.

For example Facebooks f logo is small and very well recognized, making
how -OSM- should be attributed dependent on if the f logo is present or
not, would be, IMHO, very contrived as it has no bearing on if
attribution as required by the licence can be provided or not. I should
note that this is a hypothetical, Facebook doesn't display a logo on the
small inset maps nor on the larger popup maps on their website.

Simon

>
> - 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.



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 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: [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: [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: [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 

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

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