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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d 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 s

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

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

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

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

map.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'

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

t; > 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-tal

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

: 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

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

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.o

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

termine 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 ins

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

er 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-positi

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

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

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

lto: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; ch

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

--- >> >> 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

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

- > > 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

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

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

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

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

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

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: > >> >> >>>

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-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

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-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.

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

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

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

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

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

@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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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: > >

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

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 >

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

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>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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./

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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