Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

To authors of this proposed attribution guideline.

Why it is contains misleading recommendation that
real attribution may be not present on mobile devices?

Is it something that will be discussed on LWG meeting today?
(this time I should be able to participate via Mumble,
not sure whatever it is something that would be on topic)

I am not sure why hidden attribution is described as being enough
to fulfill ODBL.

Feb 20, 2020, 20:15 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
> 20 Feb 2020, 12:09 by o...@imagico.de:
>
>> That an attribution 
>> hidden under an 'i' visible only on user interaction does not qualify 
>> as such is self evident i think.
>>
> +1
>
> I am quite confused why it is
> explicitly listed as acceptable.
>
> Is someone thinking that typical people 
> click on every barely visible interface
> element so everyone will see it?
> (Spoiler: typical user is not doing this)
>
> Or maybe someone is convinced
> that anything that fits on mobile device
> screen is not eligible for copyright?
> (No, it is not true)
>
> I have no idea what kind of reasoning
> resulted in this.
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Nuno Caldeira]

That would be a good option for those that use third party providers of
OSM. But to be honest, from my experience I highly doubt that even
corporate members of OSMF, like Mapbox would do it, when their client
Facebook (also corporate member of OSMF) after one year and half, still has
maps with lack of attribution or attributed to HERE, when it's clearly OSM.

On Sun, 8 Mar 2020, 00:46 Phil Wyatt,  wrote:

> I am sure others may have seen this 'blacklist' implementation for showing
> a reminder about attribution.
>
> https://twitter.com/cq94/status/1234528717604577282
>
> Worthy of consideration for openstreetmap.org?
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Eisenberg 
> Sent: Sunday, 8 March 2020 11:23 AM
> To: Simon Poole 
> Cc: openstreetmap 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update
>
> Is there any update about the attribution guidelines?
>
> At this point is there a chance that further comments and concerns will be
> addressed, or is this a "done deal", where community input is no longer
> going to be considered?
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 2/19/20, Simon Poole  wrote:
> > The LWG has now integrated feedback from the initial airing in August
> > last year, from a total of three sessions at SOTM-US and SOTM in
> > Heidelberg, feedback from the OSMF board and from the wider OSM
> community.
> >
> > Barring any major late developing issues, we intend to forward this to
> > the OSMF board for formal approval at the next LWG meeting on the 12th
> > of March. If you have any comments please feel free to add them to the
> > wikis talk page.
> >
> > The updated document can be found here
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > PS: please disregard the numbering in the document, that will not be
> > present on the OSMF wiki.
> >
> >
> >
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/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] Attribution guideline update

[Phil Wyatt]

I am sure others may have seen this 'blacklist' implementation for showing a 
reminder about attribution.

https://twitter.com/cq94/status/1234528717604577282

Worthy of consideration for openstreetmap.org?

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Joseph Eisenberg  
Sent: Sunday, 8 March 2020 11:23 AM
To: Simon Poole 
Cc: openstreetmap 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Is there any update about the attribution guidelines?

At this point is there a chance that further comments and concerns will be 
addressed, or is this a "done deal", where community input is no longer going 
to be considered?

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/19/20, Simon Poole  wrote:
> The LWG has now integrated feedback from the initial airing in August 
> last year, from a total of three sessions at SOTM-US and SOTM in 
> Heidelberg, feedback from the OSMF board and from the wider OSM community.
>
> Barring any major late developing issues, we intend to forward this to 
> the OSMF board for formal approval at the next LWG meeting on the 12th 
> of March. If you have any comments please feel free to add them to the 
> wikis talk page.
>
> The updated document can be found here 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline
>
> Simon
>
> PS: please disregard the numbering in the document, that will not be 
> present on the OSMF wiki.
>
>
>

___
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] Attribution guideline update

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Is there any update about the attribution guidelines?

At this point is there a chance that further comments and concerns
will be addressed, or is this a "done deal", where community input is
no longer going to be considered?

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/19/20, Simon Poole  wrote:
> The LWG has now integrated feedback from the initial airing in August
> last year, from a total of three sessions at SOTM-US and SOTM in
> Heidelberg, feedback from the OSMF board and from the wider OSM community.
>
> Barring any major late developing issues, we intend to forward this to
> the OSMF board for formal approval at the next LWG meeting on the 12th
> of March. If you have any comments please feel free to add them to the
> wikis talk page.
>
> The updated document can be found here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline
>
> Simon
>
> PS: please disregard the numbering in the document, that will not be
> present on the OSMF wiki.
>
>
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:25:48 +0100
Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
> >
> > Artificial "yes", but the main thing is that it is small enough to
> > ensure that it will essentially never be a substantial extract, on
> > the other hand large enough that you can cover the location of your
> > entrance, parking lot or whatever in it, with other words, large
> > enough to be useful.  
> 
> First: This has absolutely no place in an attribution guideline, in 
> particular since we already have a guideline specifically dealing
> with the subject of what is a substantial extract of OSM data.
> 
> Second: You are here essentially declaring almost all indoor mapping 
> performed within OSM (with the exception of really large structures 
> like large airports) to be insubstantial and therefore not protected
> by the ODbL and free to take and use without attribution or
> share-alike.

10,000 square meters really isn't that large.  It's the Senate wing of
the US Capitol Building.  It's the eastern third of Saint Peter's
Basilica.  It's gates 54, 55, and 56 of Tokyo Narita Airport.

Moving down to lesser-known structures, it's a dozen houses on the
outskirts of Paris.  It's a par-3 hole on a Scottish golf course.  It's
half of an Ikea store in the suburban United States.

10,000 square meters strikes me as a good rule of thumb for separating
"substantial" and "insubstantial" portions of the OSM database.  Sure,
there are exceptions, but I expect they'll mostly be in the direction
of larger extracts still being insubstantial.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

20 Feb 2020, 12:09 by o...@imagico.de:

> That an attribution 
> hidden under an 'i' visible only on user interaction does not qualify 
> as such is self evident i think.
>
+1

I am quite confused why it is
explicitly listed as acceptable.

Is someone thinking that typical people 
click on every barely visible interface
element so everyone will see it?
(Spoiler: typical user is not doing this)
Or maybe someone is convinced
that anything that fits on mobile device
screen is not eligible for copyright?
(No, it is not true)
I have no idea what kind of reasoning
resulted in this.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

20 Feb 2020, 18:44 by si...@poole.ch:

>
> Am 19.02.2020 um 14:24 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
>
>> In this case the statement that "small maps or multiple data sources" 
>> are the only cases where the document does not require visible 
>> attribution is wrong.  For example it is later stated that visible 
>> attribution is not required if "there is legal or safety or privacy 
>> information that needs to be presented with similar or greater 
>> prominence to attribution" - which at least in the EU is always the 
>> case!
>>
>
> So you agree with us that this is an actual external restraint that
> needs to be considered, and it is not the LWG succumbing to the
> interests of big $$$?
>
External constraints are not overriding
ODBL that requires that users are aware
of source of data.

If someone is unwilling to do that thenthey are unable to use OSM data
legally.

Let's not pretend that Mapbox-style
attribution hiding is enough to
make source of data clear.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:19 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :

> On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
> For example it is later stated that
> > > visible attribution is not required if "there is legal or safety or
> > > privacy information that needs to be presented with similar or
> > > greater prominence to attribution" - which at least in the EU is
> > > always the case!
> >
> > So you agree with us that this is an actual external restraint that
> > needs to be considered, and it is not the LWG succumbing to the
> > interests of big $$$?
>
> No, the ODbL does not care about outside constraints - if you want to
> use OSM data in a form that does not allow providing proper attribution
> and complying with legal requirements at the same time then you may not
> use OSM data at all.



+1, nobody forces you to display privacy or safety or other legal
information at the same time as the map or the map attribution. You could
present this information before any map is shown. Or this other information
could be shown in a popup / popover / alert like fashion.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
> Am 19.02.2020 um 14:24 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> > In this case the statement that "small maps or multiple data
> > sources" are the only cases where the document does not require
> > visible attribution is wrong.  For example it is later stated that
> > visible attribution is not required if "there is legal or safety or
> > privacy information that needs to be presented with similar or
> > greater prominence to attribution" - which at least in the EU is
> > always the case!
>
> So you agree with us that this is an actual external restraint that
> needs to be considered, and it is not the LWG succumbing to the
> interests of big $$$?

No, the ODbL does not care about outside constraints - if you want to 
use OSM data in a form that does not allow providing proper attribution 
and complying with legal requirements at the same time then you may not 
use OSM data at all.

The formulation i cited is an explicit permission to data users to use 
external legal contraints as an excuse not to attribute visibly.  It 
does not require the legal contraint to even substantially prevent 
proper attribution, its mere existence is declared a valid excuse to 
forego visible attribution.

Anyway - the argument you cited was not actually about this weakening of 
the attribution requirement itself, it was about the fact that the 
guideline draft is inconsistent about this - first claiming 
that "Except for small maps or multiple data sources, as described 
below, attribution must be visible" but then declaring other exceptions 
from the visible attribution requirement.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

Am 19.02.2020 um 14:24 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> In this case the statement that "small maps or multiple data sources" 
> are the only cases where the document does not require visible 
> attribution is wrong.  For example it is later stated that visible 
> attribution is not required if "there is legal or safety or privacy 
> information that needs to be presented with similar or greater 
> prominence to attribution" - which at least in the EU is always the 
> case!

So you agree with us that this is an actual external restraint that
needs to be considered, and it is not the LWG succumbing to the
interests of big $$$?




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Artificial "yes", but the main thing is that it is small enough to
> ensure that it will essentially never be a substantial extract, on
> the other hand large enough that you can cover the location of your
> entrance, parking lot or whatever in it, with other words, large
> enough to be useful.

First: This has absolutely no place in an attribution guideline, in 
particular since we already have a guideline specifically dealing with 
the subject of what is a substantial extract of OSM data.

Second: You are here essentially declaring almost all indoor mapping 
performed within OSM (with the exception of really large structures 
like large airports) to be insubstantial and therefore not protected by 
the ODbL and free to take and use without attribution or share-alike.

Given the highly variable mapping density in OSM and the fact that there 
is no limit in how detailed people may map things the whole idea of 
having a physical area limit for defining what is substantial seems 
inappropriate for OSM.

And yes, that even more applies to the 1000 inhabitants limit which even 
back in 2014 when that was adopted was not appropriate.  You can find 
areas with less than 1000 inhabitants in OSM with tens of thousands of 
features and many megabytes of data.  Considering that insubstantial is 
fairly outrageous and as others have pointed out it would also not be 
compliant with the the obligations OSM has towards data providers who 
provide us data under the condition we distribute it under the ODbL, 
not to put it effectively in the public domain.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
> >
> > So the recommendation for small devices can and should only be that
> > if a data user uses OSM data under conditions where the usual
> > attribution is technically not possible or economically not
> > desirable they have to choose a different form that has *an equal
> > or larger likeliness of making the user aware of the OSM data use*.
>
> The ODbL requires the attribution to be "reasonably calculated ...",
> which includes, naturally, "where the user would typically expect to
> find attribution". That can, and will differ based on the actual
> device displaying it. There is no requirement in the ODbL that all
> devices need to be treated equally or the same.

Please read what i wrote carefully.  I specifically pointed out that 
data users are free to attribute in any form they like as long as it is 
equivalent or better in making the user aware of the use of OSM data as 
the visible attribution in the corner of the map.  That an attribution 
hidden under an 'i' visible only on user interaction does not qualify 
as such is self evident i think.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 11:53 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :

> The ODbL requires the attribution to be "reasonably calculated ...",
> which includes, naturally, "where the user would typically expect to
> find attribution".



indeed, that's why I posted extracts of the requirements of the
competitors. All of them have clear guidance, from the examples, only Here
allows not having the attribution on the map, while both, google and mapbox
require a permanent logo on all kinds of devices on the map and
additionally an attribution text. Here says you may have a section in the
settings that must be called ‘About HERE’ (i.e. standardized, specific
prescription) on small mobile devices.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

Am 20.02.2020 um 11:34 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> What you don't seem to understand is that there is nothing in the ODbL 
> that allows the conclusion that for OSM data use on certain devices 
> there is a *lesser* requirement for making the user aware of the use of 
> OSM data than on others (based on physical size or other factors).
>
> So the recommendation for small devices can and should only be that if a 
> data user uses OSM data under conditions where the usual attribution is 
> technically not possible or economically not desirable they have to 
> choose a different form that has *an equal or larger likeliness of 
> making the user aware of the OSM data use*.

The ODbL requires the attribution to be "reasonably calculated ...",
which includes, naturally, "where the user would typically expect to
find attribution". That can, and will differ based on the actual device
displaying it. There is no requirement in the ODbL that all devices need
to be treated equally or the same.




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 11:32 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :

> Am 20.02.2020 um 11:19 schrieb Christian Quest:
> >
> > - the 10.000m2 limit, this is completely artificial
> >
> >
> Artificial "yes", but the main thing is that it is small enough to
> ensure that it will essentially never be a substantial extract, on the
> other hand large enough that you can cover the location of your
> entrance, parking lot or whatever in it, with other words, large enough
> to be useful.



if you are operating a service with many users, and showing for every user
a small related map of  m2, it would be substantial (together) but you
would not have to attribute?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Christoph Hormann]

I agree that talking about specific forms of attribution is pointless 
here.  Each corporate OSM data user has a huge department of people who 
every day do no other thing than thinking about new and creative ways 
to pry for their users' attention and use it in the company's interest.  
They do not need the OSMF's help with that (or if they do they have a 
more serious problem).

What you don't seem to understand is that there is nothing in the ODbL 
that allows the conclusion that for OSM data use on certain devices 
there is a *lesser* requirement for making the user aware of the use of 
OSM data than on others (based on physical size or other factors).

So the recommendation for small devices can and should only be that if a 
data user uses OSM data under conditions where the usual attribution is 
technically not possible or economically not desirable they have to 
choose a different form that has *an equal or larger likeliness of 
making the user aware of the OSM data use*.

If you want to give specific examples for how to do this then you should 
use examples that clearly meet this requirements.  A hidden attribution 
evidently does not.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

Am 20.02.2020 um 11:19 schrieb Christian Quest:
>
> - the 10.000m2 limit, this is completely artificial
>
>
Artificial "yes", but the main thing is that it is small enough to
ensure that it will essentially never be a substantial extract, on the
other hand large enough that you can cover the location of your
entrance, parking lot or whatever in it, with other words, large enough
to be useful.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Christian Quest]

Le 19/02/2020 à 09:59, Simon Poole a écrit :

The LWG has now integrated feedback from the initial airing in August
last year, from a total of three sessions at SOTM-US and SOTM in
Heidelberg, feedback from the OSMF board and from the wider OSM community.

Barring any major late developing issues, we intend to forward this to
the OSMF board for formal approval at the next LWG meeting on the 12th
of March. If you have any comments please feel free to add them to the
wikis talk page.

The updated document can be found here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline

Simon

PS: please disregard the numbering in the document, that will not be
present on the OSMF wiki.


Thank you Simon !

Like many others, I hardly agree on 2 things:

- the 10.000m2 limit, this is completely artificial

- the mobile rule allowing an interaction to access the attribution


The minimal "(C) OpenStreetMap" attribution requires very few pixels, 
less than 150. When this space is available, direct attribution should 
be there, whatever the size of the screen or type of device.


When multiple attributions are required (from OpenStreetMap and others) 
and space is limited, a single "Copyright" with link or interaction 
could replace it. This eliminates the battle for screen space between 
Mapbox logo vs OpenStreetMap (because we're indirectly talking of that) 
and moves both at the same attribution level.


Setting such a fixed limit could also solve the thumbnail problem... a 
150px wide image can't deliver so much map data...



--

Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Nuno Caldeira]

Good luck with Mapbox trying to comply with odbl, OSMF corporate foundation
and community expectations, to their their of service and the attribution
you just quoted. They will try to close the ticket several times without
solving the issues. wall hammering.

The examples you gave were checked and as from an ethical point is what any
company or osm data user would do. Sadly, this is happening and companies
either ignore or state that odbl doesn't mention how to attribute.
Therefore this guidance

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 09:26 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

> Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 01:06 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
> talk@openstreetmap.org>
>
>
> 3. https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/
> "Mapbox requires two types of attribution: a wordmark and text
> attribution."
> "The *Mapbox wordtmark* 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."
> "The text attribution contains at least three links: © Mapbox, ©
> OpenStreetMap and Improve this map. You must properly attribute and link
> Mapbox and OpenStreetMap when using the Mapbox Streets tileset."
>
> (note that the wordmark remains visible on smaller screen sizes, while the
> Textattribution, including reference to OSM, is collapsed into a button).
> This graphic shows typical MapBox attribution in mobile apps (here iOS but
> Android is similar):
> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/attribution/ios-attribution.gif
> (the mapbox wordmark and an anonymous i, which on tap pops up an action
> sheet with 3 times mention of "mapbox" and 1 time Openstreetmap).
>
> They also state: "By default, the Mapbox *wordmark and information button*
> are located on the bottom left of the map. You may move these elements to a
> different position, but *they must stay on the map view.*"
> (this is explicitly for mobile devices like phones, emphasis by me)
>
>
> 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] Attribution guideline update

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 01:06 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org>:

> And "mobile devices may have attribution after one interaction"
> absolutely MUST be removed.
>
> This part looks like written by Mapbox copyright lawyers
> to legitimise their unacceptable attribution hiding.
>
> Hiding attribution behind "i" icon
> is not fulfilling ODBL.
> It is clearly not enough to make clear that data is from OSM.
>
> Allowing to keep that means that we capitulate
> and allow Mapbox, maps.me, Facebook and others
> to use our data without a proper attribution.
>
> There is enough space on mobile devices
> to show a proper attribution in the bottom
> right corner! (or some other corner).
>



To get additional data points for the question how attribution "reasonably
calculated" to make users aware, would look like, let's look at the
provisions that other map service and data providers require:


1. https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide/
"
Attribution information will appear automatically on the content if you:
embed an interactive map using the HTML provided on Google Maps;
use one our Geo APIs to create"

additionally, the G adds automatically a colored logo and states:
"your text must be _as visible_ as it would have been if you had used the
default text that we provide."




2.
https://here.widencollective.com/portals/a6jjvn6x/08CopyrightPrinciplesGuidelinesPage
"
Any material (e.g. the Map canvas, Web pages, Presentations, Marketing
Material, Advertising, etc.) owned by HERE and used by external parties
should have the following copyright notice:
© 201X HERE"
...
For material in page format, the copyright notice should be placed at the
left or right bottom corner of every page of the material.
In tablet and desktop sized products showing the map canvas, the HERE
copyright should be displayed on the map. In mobile handsets, including
watches and embedded in-car systems, the HERE copyright may alternatively
be displayed in the ‘About HERE’ section in the Settings. In applications
supporting all display sizes, the HERE copyright should be displayed on the
map and in the ‘About HERE’ section in the Settings.
External parties may not remove existing copyright notices from HERE
material."

and "In application interfaces or map displays, if space constraints do not
allow display on separate lines, then display both notices on a single line
at least two spaces apart, as follows:
© 201X Partner © 201X HERE"



3. https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/
"Mapbox requires two types of attribution: a wordmark and text attribution."
"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."
"The text attribution contains at least three links: © Mapbox, ©
OpenStreetMap and Improve this map. You must properly attribute and link
Mapbox and OpenStreetMap when using the Mapbox Streets tileset."

(note that the wordmark remains visible on smaller screen sizes, while the
Textattribution, including reference to OSM, is collapsed into a button).
This graphic shows typical MapBox attribution in mobile apps (here iOS but
Android is similar):
https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/attribution/ios-attribution.gif
(the mapbox wordmark and an anonymous i, which on tap pops up an action
sheet with 3 times mention of "mapbox" and 1 time Openstreetmap).

They also state: "By default, the Mapbox *wordmark and information button*
are located on the bottom left of the map. You may move these elements to a
different position, but *they must stay on the map view.*"
(this is explicitly for mobile devices like phones, emphasis by me)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

Folks, I was being a bit tongue in cheek, obviously the point didn't get
across. I apologize and re-state:

For many legal and marketing reasons providing attribution to "OSM" is
not something that is likely ever going to be supported or recommended
by the OSMF as sufficient.

This is nothing new and has nothing to do with the proposed guideline
outside of reducing the options.

Simon

Am 20.02.2020 um 00:44 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
>
>
>
> 19 Feb 2020, 21:05 by si...@poole.ch:
>
>
> Am 19.02.2020 um 20:17 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
>> 19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by dieterdre...@gmail.com
>> :
>>
>> But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000
>> actual retina pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3). 
>>
>> Yes, you may easily fit at least "© OSM"
>> with link in such space.
>
> Just that people don't get the wrong idea, using attributing to
> OSM is completely out of the question, since when does Online
> Soccer Manager distribute geo-data?
>
> Obviously, it is only ok when you are constrained 
> for space and there is actually no
> space for longer text.
>
> If you have let's say 450 pixels then you
> should use full name OpenStreetMap.
>
> ___
> 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] Attribution guideline update

[Joseph Eisenberg]

As Martin (@ dieterdreist) mentioned above, even 200 pixels is plenty
of space for the 15 character long "© Openstreetmap": that gives you
12 pixels per character width.

For example, our rendering of "Upper Hutchinson"... (field) in Chicago
is only 81 x 12 pixels for 16 characters at 10 point font (rendered in
Mapnik at standard resolution). See:
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/42757252/73586817-17ca5100-44f6-11ea-8594-42ca9e8f980b.png
- just right of center.

If the small map is 200 pixels wide, the Openstreetmap copyright would
only take up 40% of the width, leaving plenty of room for another logo
or copyright notice.

Even if we ask for a 12 point font (14 pixels tall with white halo),
this would be about 100 pixels, which fits in half of the width of a
200 pixel window and less than half of a 250 pixel map.

But I would consider it ok to use  "© OSM" for a tiny watch screen or
tiny map that is less than 200 pixels wide (but more than 100 pixels).
It should only be necessary to use a tiny icon with a link to a
separate page if the screen or image is less than 100 pixels wide.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/20/20, Mateusz Konieczny via talk  wrote:
>
>
>
> 19 Feb 2020, 21:05 by si...@poole.ch:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 19.02.2020 um 20:17 schrieb Mateusz  Konieczny via talk:
>>
>>> 19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> :
>>>
 But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many  (=1000
 actual retina pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3).

>>> Yes, you may easily fit at least "© OSM"
>>> with link in such space.
>>>
>>
>> Just that people don't get the wrong idea, using attributing to  OSM
>> is completely out of the question, since when does Online  Soccer
>> Manager distribute geo-data?
>>
>>
> Obviously, it is only ok when you are constrained
> for space and there is actually no
> space for longer text.
>
> If you have let's say 450 pixels then you
> should use full name OpenStreetMap.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

19 Feb 2020, 13:14 by o...@imagico.de:
> Anyway - while i am not surprised about this it is sobering how little 
> of the feedback provided in previous conversation - in particular from:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-August/thread.html#83068
>
> has found a substantial reflection in the document. 
>
And from 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-September/thread.html#83068

Is there at least some list of rejected
feedback with explanation why?

Maybe for example my comments areincorrect and there is actually no way tofit 
attribution in the map 500 pixels wide
and odbl actually has exception for
mobile devices that I missed.
But currently I am unsure whatever
my comments were ignored, taken into
account and rejected as invalid or were
somehow used to improve this document
and are addressed.
> I am therfore 
> reluctant to newly review the document in detail because it seems a 
> waste of effort.
>
I hope that things can be still fixed.

In particular the claim about 500 pixel
wide map not requiring proper attribution
really should be fixed.

And "mobile devices may have attribution after one interaction" 
absolutely MUST be removed.

This part looks like written by Mapbox copyright lawyers
to legitimise their unacceptable attribution hiding.

Hiding attribution behind "i" icon
is not fulfilling ODBL.
It is clearly not enough to make clear that data is from OSM.
Allowing to keep that means that we capitulate
and allow Mapbox, maps.me, Facebook and others
to use our data without a proper attribution.

There is enough space on mobile devices
to show a proper attribution in the bottom
right corner! (or some other corner).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

19 Feb 2020, 21:05 by si...@poole.ch:

>
>
>
> Am 19.02.2020 um 20:17 schrieb Mateusz  Konieczny via talk:
>
>> 19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many  (=1000 
>>> actual retina pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3). 
>>>
>> Yes, you may easily fit at least "© OSM"
>> with link in such space.
>>
>
> Just that people don't get the wrong idea, using attributing to  OSM is 
> completely out of the question, since when does Online  Soccer Manager 
> distribute geo-data?
>
>
Obviously, it is only ok when you are constrained 
for space and there is actually no
space for longer text.

If you have let's say 450 pixels then you
should use full name OpenStreetMap.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Steve Doerr]

On 19/02/2020 12:14, Christoph Hormann wrote:

I am therfore
reluctant to newly review the document in detail because it seems a
waste of effort.


Don't bother then. No one will miss it.

--

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> On 19. Feb 2020, at 21:10, Simon Poole  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am 19.02.2020 um 20:17 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
>> 19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>> But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000 actual retina 
>> pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3). 
>> Yes, you may easily fit at least "© OSM"
>> with link in such space.
> Just that people don't get the wrong idea, using attributing to OSM is 
> completely out of the question, since when does Online Soccer Manager 
> distribute geo-data?
> 

yes of course. Pretending you could only fit the abbreviated form in 500px 
would be a total misrepresentation. The actual requirement for "© OpenStreetMap 
contributors" is around 163 pixels (measured on the current OpenStreetMap.org 
page/style), if you remove the contributors it’s below 100px

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

Am 19.02.2020 um 20:17 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
> 19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000
> actual retina pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3). 
>
> Yes, you may easily fit at least "© OSM"
> with link in such space.

Just that people don't get the wrong idea, using attributing to OSM is
completely out of the question, since when does Online Soccer Manager
distribute geo-data?

Simon

PS: the 1st part was actually serious.

>
> Suggesting that real attribution is 
> not required in such case is absurd
> and dangerous misrepresentation
> of the ODBL.
>
> ODBL requires attribution clear to
> users of data, there is no waiver for mobile devices.
>
> ___
> 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] Attribution guideline update

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000 actual retina 
> pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3). 
>
Yes, you may easily fit at least "© OSM"
with link in such space.

Suggesting that real attribution is 
not required in such case is absurd
and dangerous misrepresentation
of the ODBL.

ODBL requires attribution clear to
users of data, there is no waiver for mobile devices.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Yves]

For the sake of the discussion about 'small map' size, a mockup on the wiki 
would certainly help.
The 500dpi and 25% size seems quite big to me, there's room for (c) 
Openstreetmap there.
Yves Cainaud ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

I believe there is actually a small issue with the definition here, as
there are two conflicting DIP definitions in use (one pixel on mobile
devices ~160 DPI vs one pixel for CSS 96 DPI), we need to state what we
are using.

Simon

Am 19.02.2020 um 17:22 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 19 feb 2020, alle ore 16:37, Michal Migurski  ha 
>> scritto:
>>
>> For our purposes, this is a better definition because it’s defined in terms 
>> of what a viewer can see rather than its implementation in hardware.
>
> contrary to what I had written above I agree that the requirement/definition 
> should be based on css-pixels because actual pixels are hard to know/control 
> (if you design a website you cannot control/forsee the devices that people 
> use to look at it, you base your layout on these theoretical css-pixels). 
> But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000 actual retina 
> pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3). 200px seems perfectly ok for rendering a 
> readable attribution string and still having some space left. There is no 
> technical problem with lack of space for 200px wide maps.
>
> Cheers Martin 
> ___
> 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] Attribution guideline update

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 19 feb 2020, alle ore 16:37, Michal Migurski  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> For our purposes, this is a better definition because it’s defined in terms 
> of what a viewer can see rather than its implementation in hardware.


contrary to what I had written above I agree that the requirement/definition 
should be based on css-pixels because actual pixels are hard to know/control 
(if you design a website you cannot control/forsee the devices that people use 
to look at it, you base your layout on these theoretical css-pixels). 
But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000 actual retina 
pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3). 200px seems perfectly ok for rendering a 
readable attribution string and still having some space left. There is no 
technical problem with lack of space for 200px wide maps.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone
> As pointed out in the guideline text, the difference is not only screen size, 
> but how you interact with the device. Try clicking on your average watch.
> 



watches are kind of an exception because of their really small screen, but they 
are already perfectly covered by the general size criterion, you do not need a 
special mobile device paragraph, which would also cover phones, tablets (and 
likely even laptops/notebooks), i.e. the majority of devices that people use to 
interact with OpenStreetMap based services.

The guideline in its current state would be legitimating the widely diffused 
practice of mainly attributing to yourself and somewhere secondary (second 
page/splashscreen/etc) pro forma to OpenStreetMap.
Many of the examples of insufficient attribution from the past years which have 
rightfully upset the contributors would be fine with the new guidelines.

Attribution is essential for further growing our community, we should not make 
concessions that reduce its visibility.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Michal Migurski]

> On Feb 19, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> I am not sure what "device-independent pixels" means. Is this about points 
> (i.e. physical, hardware screen pixels divided by the scale)? IMHO we should 
> require actual, physical pixels, because it is them who determine whether the 
> attribution string will be readable --- and the requirement should be 
> tougher. We have seen many examples of easily readable, unobtrusive 
> attribution on much smaller maps. For example the osm.org  
> website on 467 pixels wide has room for a scale bar and this text: "© 
> OpenStreetMap contributors # Make a Donation. Website and API terms" in a 
> single line.
> 
> The actual requirement for "© OpenStreetMap contributors" is around 163 
> pixels. My suggestion would be to make this half: 250 pixels, maybe even less 
> like 200 (theoretical) pixels for retina screens (i.e. 400 actual pixels on 
> retina@2x and 600 actual pixels on retina@3x).
> Our goal is not to avoid attribution but to show it when it can reasonably be 
> done.

Device-independent pixels are a concept used in CSS in response to the 
high-resolution screens available for the past few years. Since actual, 
physical pixels are now very small, a new definition expresses them in terms of 
visual angle so that pixel-defined CSS layouts from the past few decades aren’t 
suddenly illegible: “By definition, this is the physical size of a single pixel 
at a pixel density of 96 DPI, located an arm's length away from the viewer's 
eyes.”

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/CSS_pixel

For our purposes, this is a better definition because it’s defined in terms of 
what a viewer can see rather than its implementation in hardware.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

Am 19.02.2020 um 15:59 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> ..
> Imho we should not differentiate between mobile and desktop devices:
> either there is sufficient space and attribution should be permanent,
> or there isn’t and it is ok you have to click somewhere to see it. The
> constraints/conditions for being sufficient space are the same on
> mobile devices and other devices.
> ...


As pointed out in the guideline text, the difference is not only screen
size, but how you interact with the device. Try clicking on your average
watch.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

There is a difference (a very big one), between saying "if you do X we
believe you are fulfilling the requirements of the licence" and saying
"you need to do Y to make us happy, even if it doesn't have any founding
in the licence". And that has nothing to do with winning court cases,
but all with staying true to the 6 million plus agreements the OSMF has
with OSM contributors, or put differently: behaving ethically ourselves.

Simon

Am 19.02.2020 um 15:51 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> If the map says "Copyright BoxMap, imagery copyright IRSE" in bold in
> the right corner, but the Openstreetmap notice is hidden behind a tiny
> "i" or ony shown briefly on app startup (which only happens after your
> phone crashes or the app updates), then this gives the impression that
> the data is also from BoxMap and IRSE. That is false attribution.
>
>>  "we are only saying that if you follow the guidleine we believe you are 
>> providing sufficient attribution as required by the licence"
> Right, and this is our guideline which means "we won't sue you if you
> follow these steps." It is perfectly reasonable to request things that
> are the ethical and common-sensically "right way to do it" even if we
> can't win a court verdict in London or New York or wherever. As the
> guideline states, we are not claiming to have determined the legal
> status in any particular country.
>
> There is nothing wrong about requesting specific attribution details
> which are not mentioned in the license. You certainly know that the
> guidelines are much more specific than the license already, mainly in
> the many exceptions to the normal attribution requirements which the
> draft is allowing. We can also add more specific requirements and
> trust that most database users will do their best to follow them.
>
>> I would suggest reading https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?author=bkuhn "Toward 
>> Copyleft Equality for All".
> That article is unintelligible to me. Too many jargon terms. But I
> will note that "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, whether you use
> it to argue for stronger or weaker license enforcement and terms.
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 2/19/20, Simon Poole  wrote:
>> Am 19.02.2020 um 14:40 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
 IMHO attribution should always be required  1. on the map 2. in high
 contrast
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> The main problem is that mobile devices, which are by far the most
>>> common ways of accessing maps around the world, are only required to
>>> provide attribution after a click or swipe, or even just on app
>>> startup with a short "splash" screen:
>> Providing attribution on splash screen is an obvious and widely accepted
>> way of attribution completely independently of the guideline we are
>> discussing here.
>>> I think there should be a statement in the guideline that
>>> Openstreetmap attribution must not be inferior to attribution of other
>>> data sources or the map designer. That is, if the app logo or aerial
>>> imagery copyright is shown, then Openstreetmap must also be shown at
>>> the same time. If Openstreetmap is relegated to a separate splash page
>>> or linked page, the other copyright/logo features must also be on that
>>> page.
>> The licence does not stipulate any relative criteria for attribution wrt
>> UI elements, other attribution or anything else on the screen. Adding
>> such a requirement would break the open definitions requirement that all
>> terms for use of the content be defined in the licence. Obviously there
>> is a fine line there that we try not to cross with this guideline, in
>> that we are only saying that if you follow the guidleine we believe you
>> are providing sufficient attribution as required by the licence (note
>> this not new, the problem is inherent in giving any guidance wrt any
>> effect of the licence).
>>
>>> We should not give up on enforcing basic ethical behavior from
>>> corporations. Everyone who has been to school knows that copying
>>> without attribution is plagarism, and putting your logo on the front
>>> makes it look like plagarism if Openstreetmap is relegated to a
>>> non-visible page.
>> Again, enforcing ethical behaviour is outside of the scope of open data
>> licensing, at least in the definition that is used in our contributor
>> terms (and which in practical terms is immutable).
>>
>> There is currently a lot of discussion on this topic in the OSS
>> communities, but just to illustrate the kind of slippery slope you are
>> venturing on to, I would suggest reading
>> https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?author=bkuhn "Toward Copyleft Equality
>> for All".
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>> - Joseph M Eisenberg
>>> (Hobbiest mapper from USA in Indonesia, volunteer contributor to the
>>> Openstreetmap Carto map style. I have no financial or professional
>>> interest or conflict.)
>>>
>>> On 2/19/20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
 Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
 frede...@remote.o

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 19 feb 2020, alle ore 15:17, Simon Poole  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> 
> Am 19.02.2020 um 14:40 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
>>> IMHO attribution should always be required  1. on the map 2. in high 
>>> contrast
>> Agreed.
>> The main problem is that mobile devices, which are by far the most
>> common ways of accessing maps around the world, are only required to
>> provide attribution after a click or swipe, or even just on app
>> startup with a short "splash" screen:
> Providing attribution on splash screen is an obvious and widely accepted
> way of attribution completely independently of the guideline we are
> discussing here.



for maps the standard is on screen permanent attribution. I agree with Joseph 
that splash screen attribution combined with a permanent (different) logo or 
attribution for the service that uses OpenStreetMap data could be very 
misleading.


The sentence „ Small thumbnails/icons do not require attribution.“ should be 
expanded. For example facebook used to show small maps for places with a 
location, which could eventually be argumented as „small thumbnails“ but which 
are also usable and useful maps and should be attributed.


Imho we should not differentiate between mobile and desktop devices: either 
there is sufficient space and attribution should be permanent, or there isn’t 
and it is ok you have to click somewhere to see it. The constraints/conditions 
for being sufficient space are the same on mobile devices and other devices.

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Joseph Eisenberg]

If the map says "Copyright BoxMap, imagery copyright IRSE" in bold in
the right corner, but the Openstreetmap notice is hidden behind a tiny
"i" or ony shown briefly on app startup (which only happens after your
phone crashes or the app updates), then this gives the impression that
the data is also from BoxMap and IRSE. That is false attribution.

>  "we are only saying that if you follow the guidleine we believe you are 
> providing sufficient attribution as required by the licence"

Right, and this is our guideline which means "we won't sue you if you
follow these steps." It is perfectly reasonable to request things that
are the ethical and common-sensically "right way to do it" even if we
can't win a court verdict in London or New York or wherever. As the
guideline states, we are not claiming to have determined the legal
status in any particular country.

There is nothing wrong about requesting specific attribution details
which are not mentioned in the license. You certainly know that the
guidelines are much more specific than the license already, mainly in
the many exceptions to the normal attribution requirements which the
draft is allowing. We can also add more specific requirements and
trust that most database users will do their best to follow them.

> I would suggest reading https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?author=bkuhn "Toward 
> Copyleft Equality for All".

That article is unintelligible to me. Too many jargon terms. But I
will note that "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, whether you use
it to argue for stronger or weaker license enforcement and terms.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/19/20, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
> Am 19.02.2020 um 14:40 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
>>> IMHO attribution should always be required  1. on the map 2. in high
>>> contrast
>> Agreed.
>>
>> The main problem is that mobile devices, which are by far the most
>> common ways of accessing maps around the world, are only required to
>> provide attribution after a click or swipe, or even just on app
>> startup with a short "splash" screen:
> Providing attribution on splash screen is an obvious and widely accepted
> way of attribution completely independently of the guideline we are
> discussing here.
>>
>> I think there should be a statement in the guideline that
>> Openstreetmap attribution must not be inferior to attribution of other
>> data sources or the map designer. That is, if the app logo or aerial
>> imagery copyright is shown, then Openstreetmap must also be shown at
>> the same time. If Openstreetmap is relegated to a separate splash page
>> or linked page, the other copyright/logo features must also be on that
>> page.
>
> The licence does not stipulate any relative criteria for attribution wrt
> UI elements, other attribution or anything else on the screen. Adding
> such a requirement would break the open definitions requirement that all
> terms for use of the content be defined in the licence. Obviously there
> is a fine line there that we try not to cross with this guideline, in
> that we are only saying that if you follow the guidleine we believe you
> are providing sufficient attribution as required by the licence (note
> this not new, the problem is inherent in giving any guidance wrt any
> effect of the licence).
>
>> We should not give up on enforcing basic ethical behavior from
>> corporations. Everyone who has been to school knows that copying
>> without attribution is plagarism, and putting your logo on the front
>> makes it look like plagarism if Openstreetmap is relegated to a
>> non-visible page.
>
> Again, enforcing ethical behaviour is outside of the scope of open data
> licensing, at least in the definition that is used in our contributor
> terms (and which in practical terms is immutable).
>
> There is currently a lot of discussion on this topic in the OSS
> communities, but just to illustrate the kind of slippery slope you are
> venturing on to, I would suggest reading
> https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?author=bkuhn "Toward Copyleft Equality
> for All".
>
> Simon
>
>>
>> - Joseph M Eisenberg
>> (Hobbiest mapper from USA in Indonesia, volunteer contributor to the
>> Openstreetmap Carto map style. I have no financial or professional
>> interest or conflict.)
>>
>> On 2/19/20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>>> Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
>>> frede...@remote.org>:
>>>
> Not to mention the most blatant attempts at sneaking corporate
> wishlist
> items into the guideline are all still there - like the 1 m^2 map
> area limit that has been conjured out of thin air
 True, this is a bit strange, it would have to be replaced by "an area
 of
 up to 1,000 inhabitants" as per the "Substantial" guideline - though I
 don't find the difference outrageous, in fact the 10.000m² will only be
 *friendlier* towards non-attribution than the "1.000 inhabitatants" in
 densely populated urban areas.
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

Am 19.02.2020 um 15:02 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
>
> In my mind I always ask the question: How essential was OSM for what is
> being done? How much of your hike remains if you remove OSM from the
> picture? How much of a trained AI remains if you remove OSM from the
> picture?

Assuming "essential" doesn't mean "can't be replaced by a different
product", obviously in both cases nothing remains.

SImon




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

Am 19.02.2020 um 14:40 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
>> IMHO attribution should always be required  1. on the map 2. in high contrast
> Agreed.
>
> The main problem is that mobile devices, which are by far the most
> common ways of accessing maps around the world, are only required to
> provide attribution after a click or swipe, or even just on app
> startup with a short "splash" screen:
Providing attribution on splash screen is an obvious and widely accepted
way of attribution completely independently of the guideline we are
discussing here.
>
> I think there should be a statement in the guideline that
> Openstreetmap attribution must not be inferior to attribution of other
> data sources or the map designer. That is, if the app logo or aerial
> imagery copyright is shown, then Openstreetmap must also be shown at
> the same time. If Openstreetmap is relegated to a separate splash page
> or linked page, the other copyright/logo features must also be on that
> page.

The licence does not stipulate any relative criteria for attribution wrt
UI elements, other attribution or anything else on the screen. Adding
such a requirement would break the open definitions requirement that all
terms for use of the content be defined in the licence. Obviously there
is a fine line there that we try not to cross with this guideline, in
that we are only saying that if you follow the guidleine we believe you
are providing sufficient attribution as required by the licence (note
this not new, the problem is inherent in giving any guidance wrt any
effect of the licence).   

> We should not give up on enforcing basic ethical behavior from
> corporations. Everyone who has been to school knows that copying
> without attribution is plagarism, and putting your logo on the front
> makes it look like plagarism if Openstreetmap is relegated to a
> non-visible page.

Again, enforcing ethical behaviour is outside of the scope of open data
licensing, at least in the definition that is used in our contributor
terms (and which in practical terms is immutable).

There is currently a lot of discussion on this topic in the OSS
communities, but just to illustrate the kind of slippery slope you are
venturing on to, I would suggest reading
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?author=bkuhn "Toward Copyleft Equality
for All".

Simon

>
> - Joseph M Eisenberg
> (Hobbiest mapper from USA in Indonesia, volunteer contributor to the
> Openstreetmap Carto map style. I have no financial or professional
> interest or conflict.)
>
> On 2/19/20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
>> frede...@remote.org>:
>>
 Not to mention the most blatant attempts at sneaking corporate wishlist
 items into the guideline are all still there - like the 1 m^2 map
 area limit that has been conjured out of thin air
>>> True, this is a bit strange, it would have to be replaced by "an area of
>>> up to 1,000 inhabitants" as per the "Substantial" guideline - though I
>>> don't find the difference outrageous, in fact the 10.000m² will only be
>>> *friendlier* towards non-attribution than the "1.000 inhabitatants" in
>>> densely populated urban areas.
>>
>>
>> I guess 10k sqm will be a stronger requirement (almost) everywhere, for
>> example look at Manhattan, maybe not the densest place on earth, but surely
>> one of the densers. With roughly 27500 inhabitants per sqkm, on the average
>> 100x100m NYC patch there will only be 275 inhabitants.
>>
>>
>>
>> I stumbled upon the small maps section.
>> __
>> The following maps are each considered small:
>>
>>- The map takes up less than 25% of the displayed window, or
>>- The map is of less than 500 device-independent pixels horizontally.
>>
>> Small maps may have attribution after one interaction. Examples of one
>> interaction include “one click,” such as an icon or link that opens a
>> pop-up or new webpage that displays attribution, or a mouseover, swipe,
>> drag, pinch, etc.
>> __
>>
>> Isn't the reason for not requiring attribution _on the map_ the limited
>> space? Why is there a condition that makes (easily visible) attribution not
>> mandatory for extremely large screens? There is a development from several
>> screens to large screens, and pixel density is generally growing, so the
>> "max 25% of the displayed window is a map" condition doesn't seem
>> reasonable. IMHO attribution should always be required
>>
>> 1. on the map
>> 2. in high contrast
>>
>> (3. in a lower corner, left or right)
>>
>> I am not sure what "device-independent pixels" means. Is this about points
>> (i.e. physical, hardware screen pixels divided by the scale)? IMHO we
>> should require actual, physical pixels, because it is them who determine
>> whether the attribution string will be readable --- and the requirement
>> should be tougher. We have seen many examples of easily readable,
>> unobtrusive attribution on much smaller maps. For example the osm.org
>> website on 467 pixels wide h

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 19.02.20 14:38, Simon Poole wrote:
> As a thought experiment consider planning a trip around your fav place
> boundary with OSM,  going for the walk with an OSM based map in your
> hand so that you stay on course, and then writing a a blog post about
> your experience. For the purpose of the argument forget about
> substantial vs. non-substantial and Produced Works vs. Derivative Databases.

> Is the blog post a derivative of OSM?

In my mind I always ask the question: How essential was OSM for what is
being done? How much of your hike remains if you remove OSM from the
picture? How much of a trained AI remains if you remove OSM from the
picture?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> IMHO attribution should always be required  1. on the map 2. in high contrast

Agreed.

The main problem is that mobile devices, which are by far the most
common ways of accessing maps around the world, are only required to
provide attribution after a click or swipe, or even just on app
startup with a short "splash" screen:

"mobile devices may have attribution after one interaction. Examples
of one interaction include “one click,” such as an icon or link that
opens a pop-up or new webpage, or a swipe, drag, pinch, etc."
"Alternatively, mobile devices may provide attribution on a splash
screen on application startup or in a pop-up that fades/collapses
automatically."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline#Mobile_devices

This is the case even if the map takes up the whole, high-resolution
screen and there is plenty of room for a Maps.me or Mapbox + ESRI +
App logo in the right hand corner. I do not consider this reasonable,
or the excuse for "max 25% of displayed window": that could be up to
1400 x 800 pixels on my laptop.

I think there should be a statement in the guideline that
Openstreetmap attribution must not be inferior to attribution of other
data sources or the map designer. That is, if the app logo or aerial
imagery copyright is shown, then Openstreetmap must also be shown at
the same time. If Openstreetmap is relegated to a separate splash page
or linked page, the other copyright/logo features must also be on that
page.

We should not give up on enforcing basic ethical behavior from
corporations. Everyone who has been to school knows that copying
without attribution is plagarism, and putting your logo on the front
makes it look like plagarism if Openstreetmap is relegated to a
non-visible page.

- Joseph M Eisenberg
(Hobbiest mapper from USA in Indonesia, volunteer contributor to the
Openstreetmap Carto map style. I have no financial or professional
interest or conflict.)

On 2/19/20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
> frede...@remote.org>:
>
>> > Not to mention the most blatant attempts at sneaking corporate wishlist
>> > items into the guideline are all still there - like the 1 m^2 map
>> > area limit that has been conjured out of thin air
>>
>> True, this is a bit strange, it would have to be replaced by "an area of
>> up to 1,000 inhabitants" as per the "Substantial" guideline - though I
>> don't find the difference outrageous, in fact the 10.000m² will only be
>> *friendlier* towards non-attribution than the "1.000 inhabitatants" in
>> densely populated urban areas.
>
>
>
> I guess 10k sqm will be a stronger requirement (almost) everywhere, for
> example look at Manhattan, maybe not the densest place on earth, but surely
> one of the densers. With roughly 27500 inhabitants per sqkm, on the average
> 100x100m NYC patch there will only be 275 inhabitants.
>
>
>
> I stumbled upon the small maps section.
> __
> The following maps are each considered small:
>
>- The map takes up less than 25% of the displayed window, or
>- The map is of less than 500 device-independent pixels horizontally.
>
> Small maps may have attribution after one interaction. Examples of one
> interaction include “one click,” such as an icon or link that opens a
> pop-up or new webpage that displays attribution, or a mouseover, swipe,
> drag, pinch, etc.
> __
>
> Isn't the reason for not requiring attribution _on the map_ the limited
> space? Why is there a condition that makes (easily visible) attribution not
> mandatory for extremely large screens? There is a development from several
> screens to large screens, and pixel density is generally growing, so the
> "max 25% of the displayed window is a map" condition doesn't seem
> reasonable. IMHO attribution should always be required
>
> 1. on the map
> 2. in high contrast
>
> (3. in a lower corner, left or right)
>
> I am not sure what "device-independent pixels" means. Is this about points
> (i.e. physical, hardware screen pixels divided by the scale)? IMHO we
> should require actual, physical pixels, because it is them who determine
> whether the attribution string will be readable --- and the requirement
> should be tougher. We have seen many examples of easily readable,
> unobtrusive attribution on much smaller maps. For example the osm.org
> website on 467 pixels wide has room for a scale bar and this text: "©
> OpenStreetMap contributors # Make a Donation. Website and API terms" in a
> single line.
>
> The actual requirement for "© OpenStreetMap contributors" is around 163
> pixels. My suggestion would be to make this half: 250 pixels, maybe even
> less like 200 (theoretical) pixels for retina screens (i.e. 400 actual
> pixels on retina@2x and 600 actual pixels on retina@3x).
> Our goal is not to avoid attribution but to show it when it can reasonably
> be done.
>
>
>
>> In my opinion, if you train your AI black box with OSM data then
>> everything that comes out of your AI b

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

Am 19.02.2020 um 13:50 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> ...
> I acknowledge Kathleen Lu's recent remark about the ODbL being very
> clear on a derived product having to "contain" OSM in some way which
> would not be the case here; but I think this calls for working on ODbL
> 1.1 to rectify the issue, rather than sitting back and saying "uh, guess
> there's nothing we can do then".
> ...

IMHO the issue here is that we often, mistakenly, tend to treat "using"
OSM the same as "creating a derivative of OSM data".

As a thought experiment consider planning a trip around your fav place
boundary with OSM,  going for the walk with an OSM based map in your
hand so that you stay on course, and then writing a a blog post about
your experience. For the purpose of the argument forget about
substantial vs. non-substantial and Produced Works vs. Derivative Databases.

Is the blog post a derivative of OSM?

Simon





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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
frede...@remote.org>:

> > Not to mention the most blatant attempts at sneaking corporate wishlist
> > items into the guideline are all still there - like the 1 m^2 map
> > area limit that has been conjured out of thin air
>
> True, this is a bit strange, it would have to be replaced by "an area of
> up to 1,000 inhabitants" as per the "Substantial" guideline - though I
> don't find the difference outrageous, in fact the 10.000m² will only be
> *friendlier* towards non-attribution than the "1.000 inhabitatants" in
> densely populated urban areas.



I guess 10k sqm will be a stronger requirement (almost) everywhere, for
example look at Manhattan, maybe not the densest place on earth, but surely
one of the densers. With roughly 27500 inhabitants per sqkm, on the average
100x100m NYC patch there will only be 275 inhabitants.



I stumbled upon the small maps section.
__
The following maps are each considered small:

   - The map takes up less than 25% of the displayed window, or
   - The map is of less than 500 device-independent pixels horizontally.

Small maps may have attribution after one interaction. Examples of one
interaction include “one click,” such as an icon or link that opens a
pop-up or new webpage that displays attribution, or a mouseover, swipe,
drag, pinch, etc.
__

Isn't the reason for not requiring attribution _on the map_ the limited
space? Why is there a condition that makes (easily visible) attribution not
mandatory for extremely large screens? There is a development from several
screens to large screens, and pixel density is generally growing, so the
"max 25% of the displayed window is a map" condition doesn't seem
reasonable. IMHO attribution should always be required

1. on the map
2. in high contrast

(3. in a lower corner, left or right)

I am not sure what "device-independent pixels" means. Is this about points
(i.e. physical, hardware screen pixels divided by the scale)? IMHO we
should require actual, physical pixels, because it is them who determine
whether the attribution string will be readable --- and the requirement
should be tougher. We have seen many examples of easily readable,
unobtrusive attribution on much smaller maps. For example the osm.org
website on 467 pixels wide has room for a scale bar and this text: "©
OpenStreetMap contributors # Make a Donation. Website and API terms" in a
single line.

The actual requirement for "© OpenStreetMap contributors" is around 163
pixels. My suggestion would be to make this half: 250 pixels, maybe even
less like 200 (theoretical) pixels for retina screens (i.e. 400 actual
pixels on retina@2x and 600 actual pixels on retina@3x).
Our goal is not to avoid attribution but to show it when it can reasonably
be done.



> In my opinion, if you train your AI black box with OSM data then
> everything that comes out of your AI black box later is a derived work
> and must come under the ODbL.



+1

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 19 February 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> * "Except for small maps or multiple data sources, as described
> below, attribution must be visible without requiring the user to
> click on an icon or similar interaction." - Your critique focuses on
> the exceptions, but saying clearly that an "(i)" is *generally* not
> sufficient is a good and necessary step.

That is part of what i refered to with the document containing self 
contradictions.  It makes general statements like the one you cited but 
then provides specific guidance contradicting these general statements.  
That is strongly misleading.

In this case the statement that "small maps or multiple data sources" 
are the only cases where the document does not require visible 
attribution is wrong.  For example it is later stated that visible 
attribution is not required if "there is legal or safety or privacy 
information that needs to be presented with similar or greater 
prominence to attribution" - which at least in the EU is always the 
case!

> On the whole, I find that the document does a good job at fleshing
> out the "reasonably calculated to make ... aware" from the ODbL.

I strongly disagree.

As discussed before the "reasonably calculated" in the ODbL quite 
clearly refers to that the basis for the determination that the efforts 
to "make any Person [...] aware [...]" needs to be reason.  This rules 
out making the required extent of attribution depend on external 
constraints like for example economic viability in a certain use case.  
The only basis for determining what level of attribution is required is 
reason in the assessment if said attribution makes people aware that 
OSM data is being use.  The idea that for example in a small screen 
display situation people are with a less visible attribution equally 
likely to become aware of the source of the data is without a basis in 
reason.

Reason dictates that in a small screen display situation *different* 
methods of making the user aware of the use of OSM data might be 
advisable - but not *less prominent ones*.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 19.02.20 13:14, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> the document then almost exclusively presents
> supposed exceptions from the attribution requirement of the ODbL.

I've just read the document for the first time this morning, so I don't
have the context of prior discussions and I think your wholesale
dismissal isn't justified.

> Or in other words:  It is the preemptive surrender of the OSMF in front
> of massive corporate interests.

I think that the document has quite a few bits that do not exactly sound
like a surrender, for example:

* "compliance with these guidelines today does not mean that we will not
propose or ask for different attribution in the future if it promotes
our shared goals" - a good assertion of our rights.

* "Except for small maps or multiple data sources, as described below,
attribution must be visible without requiring the user to click on an
icon or similar interaction." - Your critique focuses on the exceptions,
but saying clearly that an "(i)" is *generally* not sufficient is a good
and necessary step.

On the whole, I find that the document does a good job at fleshing out
the "reasonably calculated to make ... aware" from the ODbL.

> Not to mention the most blatant attempts at sneaking corporate wishlist 
> items into the guideline are all still there - like the 1 m^2 map 
> area limit that has been conjured out of thin air

True, this is a bit strange, it would have to be replaced by "an area of
up to 1,000 inhabitants" as per the "Substantial" guideline - though I
don't find the difference outrageous, in fact the 10.000m² will only be
*friendlier* towards non-attribution than the "1.000 inhabitatants" in
densely populated urban areas. I guess that 100m x 100m is simply easier
to check than whether the area has 950 or 1050 people living there!

> the 
> section on machine learning models which is completely out of place in 
> an attribution guideline and which indicates that some corporate data 
> user wants this kind of "blank check" really badly. 

I agree that the attribution guideline should not be the place where we
discuss what does and what does not constitute a derivative database.
Perhaps the section should be removed altogether.

In my opinion, if you train your AI black box with OSM data then
everything that comes out of your AI black box later is a derived work
and must come under the ODbL. I welcome the acknowledgement about
"over-trained" systems creating ODbL output, but I think it doesn't go
nearly far enough. Everyone and their dog are crawling over OSM with
their AI stuff in order to build machines that can "map automatically",
but essentially it is our brainpower that allows them to train their
machines so it's our license.

I acknowledge Kathleen Lu's recent remark about the ODbL being very
clear on a derived product having to "contain" OSM in some way which
would not be the case here; but I think this calls for working on ODbL
1.1 to rectify the issue, rather than sitting back and saying "uh, guess
there's nothing we can do then".

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 19 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> The updated document can be found here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline

I appreciate the draft document being available on the wiki - although 
the lack of an edit history makes this fairly pointless for the purpose 
of analyzing what has changed compared to previous drafts.

Anyway - while i am not surprised about this it is sobering how little 
of the feedback provided in previous conversation - in particular from:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-August/thread.html#83068

has found a substantial reflection in the document.  I am therfore 
reluctant to newly review the document in detail because it seems a 
waste of effort.  The process of designing the document appears to be 
dominated by a negotiation of lobbying interests rather than by 
arguments and reasoning.  I have no interest in attempting to compete 
in a lobbying campaign against corporate stakeholders who could easily 
mobilize an army of lobbyists to fight any voice of reason that stands 
in the way of their interests.

Apart from the various specific issues and self contradictions in the 
document the overall most questionable thing is that it claims to 
present recommendations how to be on the safe side w.r.t. attribution 
of use of OSM data - yet the document then almost exclusively presents 
supposed exceptions from the attribution requirement of the ODbL.  This 
is a fundamental design flaw of the document.

I won't go into details again about why it is a bad idea to from 
official OSMF side poke holes into the ODbL and what the specific 
issues are with the specific holes created.I already discussed this 
at length in August/September.  The funny thing is that where 
apparently things have been re-formulated in an attempt to dodge 
previous critique the new formulations are often worse than before. For 
example one criterion for visible attribution being required under the 
guideline is now if OSM is the "most significant data source".  That is 
ridiculous.  I can design any map in a way that i can argue OSM is not 
the most significant source.  It would without doubt lead to many 
corporate data users *removing* existing OSM attribution from maps 
where they so far did not dare to do so.  But that is just one of many 
specific issues with the various attribution exceptions being claimed.

Not to mention the most blatant attempts at sneaking corporate wishlist 
items into the guideline are all still there - like the 1 m^2 map 
area limit that has been conjured out of thin air apparently and the 
section on machine learning models which is completely out of place in 
an attribution guideline and which indicates that some corporate data 
user wants this kind of "blank check" really badly.  I can guarantee 
that should the OSMF adopt this it is going to blow up in their face. 
Trying to sneak either of these into a guideline on attribution is just 
reckless and in complete disregard of the reason why the ODbL has a 
share-alike provision.

If anyone wants to make a serious attempt at actually writing a guidance 
document how to practically design attribution in a way that is in line 
with the mapper community consensus interpretation of the ODbL and its 
intention as well as its function in the social contract between 
mappers and data users i would gladly help with suggestions and 
feedback.  But what is being presented here is something very 
different - it is essentially the attempt of slighting of the 
attribution requirement to an 'if you want you can visible attribute 
OSM when using its data but if you want to avoid that here are some 
hints how you can bury the mentioning of using OSM data where hardly 
anyone will see it' and we, the OSMF, promise to look the other way.  
Or in other words:  It is the preemptive surrender of the OSMF in front 
of massive corporate interests.

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

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

[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

The LWG has now integrated feedback from the initial airing in August
last year, from a total of three sessions at SOTM-US and SOTM in
Heidelberg, feedback from the OSMF board and from the wider OSM community.

Barring any major late developing issues, we intend to forward this to
the OSMF board for formal approval at the next LWG meeting on the 12th
of March. If you have any comments please feel free to add them to the
wikis talk page.

The updated document can be found here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline

Simon

PS: please disregard the numbering in the document, that will not be
present on the OSMF wiki.




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