How about et al.?
On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:58:35 Alex Barth wrote:
Paul - sorry, yeah. Not talking to ODC but I'll make sure to run by LWG.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:57 PM
Thanks for weighing in everyone. Based on the discussion, here are the
immediate adjustments I'm seeing shaking out from this thread:
1. Don't mandate, but recommend/offer attribution mark
2. Make it clear that /copyright is scrollable
3. Let's do an alt text to make sure we're on Google's radar
2013/5/1 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com
(1) The BY in BY OSM
Several arguments where made that 'by' might be misleading. So, Saman and
I have been going through alternatives to BY before too, namely:
- WITH
- no addition at all
- DATA BY
- and others
actually there is a different
Paul - sorry, yeah. Not talking to ODC but I'll make sure to run by LWG.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark
s:mikelmaron
From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com
To: Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com
Cc: Talk talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor
mark)
On Thu, Apr
Hi Robert.
Am 26.04.2013 09:44, schrieb Robert Banick:
As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It
seems a big contradictory to assert that a visual identifier for a
mapping project is a poor idea.
But OSM is not (only) a cartoGRAPHIC project, it's a geoDATA project.
One
Mike wrote
I think the root of this issue is lack of strong OpenStreetMap brand,
or, at least, lack of visual identity of the brand.
Current OSM logo lacks necessary properties of good brand visual
identification, and thus it is not used much. The most obvious problem
is it is not usable
Hi,
On 04/26/2013 09:44 AM, Robert Banick wrote:
As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual?
Certainly not. But you should have known that - I have read your recent
tweets and you talk about using the iD editor in training people to
contribute to OSM. There would not be
On 26/04/13 08:44, Robert Banick wrote:
As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It
seems a big contradictory to assert that a visual identifier for a
mapping project is a poor idea.
Well there's your first problem - it isn't (primarily) a cartographic
project at all.
2013/4/26 Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com
Therefore my preference would be to recommend people to use the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm_linkage.png logo were possible
and otherwise fall back to the (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL
that logo is old, it is based on the
One or two points:
- OSM abbreviation is not so clear as OpenStreetMap and not so popular
yet that everyone will understand immediately what it is but, by chance,
osm.org is pointing to the right site (so, displaying OSM instead of
OpenStreetMap is not that bad).
- there is no legal obligation to
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:12 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor
mark)
Hi Robert.
Am 26.04.2013 09:44, schrieb Robert Banick:
As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual
On 24.04.13. 16:48, Liz Barry wrote:
I quickly put the logo side by side with the attribution mark. I feel it
is clearly of the same family, linked by
1. the shape of the folded map
2. the color grey in the magnifying glass handle
i uploaded the JPG to twitter --
On 26.04.13. 10:19, Kai Krueger wrote:
Current OSM logo lacks necessary properties of good brand visual
identification, and thus it is not used much. The most obvious problem
is it is not usable - you cannot use it as small mark in corner of the
map as when resized to needed small resolution
dieterdreist wrote
that logo is old, it is based on the version we used prior to 29 April
2011. The current logo is this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=File:Public-images-osm_logo.svgpage=1
The logo you linked to replaced the logo
] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor
mark)
** **
4. The mark is an alternative to © OpenStreetMap Contributors. Only
where the mark can't be used, © OpenStreetMap Contributors may be used.*
***
** **
___
talk mailing list
: Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com
To: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com
Cc: Talk talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor
mark)
Paul, that sounds like a fair point, if I'm understanding
Paul -
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
I can’t see any legal justification in the ODbL for allowing a mark or the
example notice, but not something between.
Not sure I follow.
___
talk mailing list
this seems
to be insupportable by the license.
From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:08 PM
To: Paul Norman
Cc: Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor
mark)
Paul -
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Paul
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Kathleen Danielson
kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote:
Richard, can you explain a little more of why you think that the idea is
bad for OSM?
Removing OpenStreetMap from the attribution requirement is bad for
OpenStreetMap. It is good for OpenStreetMap that
Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com
To: Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com
Cc: Talk talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:40:13 -0400
From: Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com
To: Talk talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was:
contributor mark)
Message-ID:
cabxuzdsnybv7e8qehyahmpao4ojyzsimzhv+bsgg1b9eh-r...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text
I love where this is headed. As a developer that builds a business application
making use of OSM as a base layer, we have hundreds of users all over the world
that need high-quality base layer data for reference when conducting fieldwork,
many of them in GIS / mapping departments with mapping
I think the root of this issue is lack of strong OpenStreetMap brand,
or, at least, lack of visual identity of the brand.
Current OSM logo lacks necessary properties of good brand visual
identification, and thus it is not used much. The most obvious problem
is it is not usable - you cannot
The proposed mark is very well suited as a replacement. It is simple,
minimalistic, and works well on a variety of backgrounds.
+1
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Mike mike.cuttl...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the root of this issue is lack of strong OpenStreetMap brand, or,
at least, lack of
John,
On 04/24/2013 03:56 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote:
The proposed mark is very well suited as a replacement. It is simple,
minimalistic, and works well on a variety of backgrounds.
You wrote the above as a +1 to a statement from Mike Cuttler that said
What should be done first is
+1 to Alex's original post -- the new attribution mark is well designed
and versatile for its purposes. The shape of the folded map links the
attribution mark with our logo.
+1 spiffed up copyright page BUT the proportion of image to information
above the fold still needs finetuning, as well as
On 24/04/2013 16:03, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Are you therefore saying that what has been designed as an attribution
mark should be our new logo, or are you saying that there does not
have to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark?
Let me add the following alternative : there has
I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's points about the current branding around
the project. However, as there has been generally positive feedback for the
design of this attribution mark, would it make sense to move forward with
using the attribution mark (since it addresses an immediate problem) and
I quickly put the logo side by side with the attribution mark. I feel it is
clearly of the same family, linked by
1. the shape of the folded map
2. the color grey in the magnifying glass handle
i uploaded the JPG to twitter --
https://twitter.com/lizbarry/status/327071379105120257
What do
Before we get in to too much bike shedding: the CWG (as essentially our
marketing arm) has been asking for more help for a long time. Net we
have had less and less volunteers there over time.
The CWG would clearly be the place to engage in such a discussion. I'm
not sure that re-branding would
I support moving forward as stated by Kathleen. It is also an opportunity
to explore rebranding; and it's desirability; in more detail as a separate
discussion.
Best,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Kathleen Danielson
kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's
Both the new mark and the copyright page look very slick. Clean, friendly,
inviting. Great work!
--
Marc Regan
Cofounder, Mapkin (http://mapkin.co)
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Kathleen Danielson wrote:
However, as there has been generally positive
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
Hello everyone -
I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark.
Clearly. :-)
I think that the idea is bad for OpenStreetMap.
The logo is pretty.
The logo is pretty and the idea is bad for OpenStreetMap. At
for
allowing a mark or the example notice, but not something between.
Have you passed any of these ideas by other publishers of ODbL data or the ODC
lists?
From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 5:40 AM
To: Talk
Subject: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM
Alex Barth wrote:
This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this
year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2].
Thumbs up. This is really good. I love having Local knowledge in prime
position.
It'd be good to release Leaflet/OpenLayers plugins to do the attribution. If
I were
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Thumbs up. This is really good. I love having Local knowledge in prime
position.
-1
If the most important information is the local knowledge and community
driven, then the page should be renamed as the about the
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
It'd be good to release Leaflet/OpenLayers plugins to do the attribution.
If
I were feeling Machiavellian I'd suggest we consider hosting them on our
servers (load permitting) so we get an automatic heads-up of
Hello everyone -
I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark.
This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year
titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with
adjustments based on feedback on the original thread.
Again, the goal
Subject: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Hello everyone -
I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark.
This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year
titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay
2013/4/22 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com
This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year
titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with
adjustments based on feedback on the original thread.
Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more
Hi,
I like the Attribution Mark, but I think one point is missing: The link
to the wiki-contributors-page.
Henning
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
The copyright page is now much better than before and IMHO contains the
necessary contents. There are a couple of wording issues that are
already present in the current version that we should address while
we're at it (but that is mainly CWG/OWG turf) but nothing major.
I do have a couple of
What about “with OSM” instead of “by OSM”?
-mike.
---
michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com
On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
The copyright page is now much better than before and IMHO contains the
necessary contents.
Agreed. I think that either With OSM or Powered By OSM would explain
the relationship a bit better than By OSM which suggests explicit
authorship of whatever is displaying the watermark. That might not always
be the case.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com wrote:
Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com wrote:
What about “with OSM” instead of “by OSM”?
-mike.
---
michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com
On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
The copyright page is now much better than
* Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com [2013-04-22 08:40 -0400]:
2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM
I like it. Definitely more distinctive and specific to OSM than the
hammer icon.
3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to.
It is much closer to
On 22/04/13 13:40, Alex Barth wrote:
The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes:
1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark'
2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM
The new mark is definitely a distinct improvement - at least now there
It seems that the desire to use a huge image as the background comes at the
expense of the page content. To me a copyright page is about getting the
*details* over. By placing too much emphasis on the image the copyright
page appears like a *brand* or some fancy press release. We have other
pages
On 22.04.13 14:40, Alex Barth wrote:
2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters OSM
While OSM is a common phrase to us mappers, only the name/brand
OpenStreetMap is widely and well known to the public. So this name
OpenStreetMap should always be visible, whether the attribution is
On Apr 22, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to.
It is much closer to today's `/copyright`
I think the new copyright page is very nice looking and presents its data
well, but I, personally, still find it a little
51 matches
Mail list logo
