And the hypocrisy goes on. "Strava launches gorgeous new outdoor maps"
https://blog.mapbox.com/strava-launches-gorgeous-new-outdoor-maps-977c74cf37f9
If anyone spots any reference or attribution to OpenStreetMap (well this
one actually has it
Here's another example by Uber. They attribute the tiles visibly, not
OSM... how can we measure if it's 50% OSM? we can't
https://movement.uber.com/cities?lang=en-US test in multiple cities
around the world and compare side by side with OSM. clearly more than
50%. Not to mention they mix all
Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have a
report button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i was
wrong, no note on OSM, wonder where that report will go to. Also quite
funny that once you submit you get a message "your feedback help us to
*_make Facebook
9 Aug 2019, 10:41 by si...@poole.ch:
> As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
> last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document
>
In general I would explicitly state in
document itself that it is not waiving
any rules from ODBL and is unable
9 Aug 2019, 10:41 by si...@poole.ch:
> consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document
>
Thanks for work on that!
Unfortunately proposed version contains
major loophole that will be deliberately
exploited by organisation like Facebook
or Maps.me or Mapbox that describe
OSM data as
Thanks to Christine and the SotM-WG we've been allocated a slot and a
room in Heidelberg see https://2019.stateofthemap.org/sessions/AV9NWC/
Simon
Am 09.08.2019 um 09:41 schrieb Simon Poole:
> As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
> last year to consolidate all
Às 22:04 de 13/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
>
> And to Martin's point, which would you consider more important,
the overlay of rare information, the gas stations, or the basemap?
Or is the overlay only more important than the basemap if the
overlay comes from OSM?
sent from a phone
> On 13. Aug 2019, at 23:04, Kathleen Lu wrote:
>
> As far as I know, no one is talking about no attribution at all, but rather
> attribution after a click
in some cases we are talking about several clicks, but what I meant was that it
could well happen that you’d have
>
> > And to Martin's point, which would you consider more important, the
> overlay of rare information, the gas stations, or the basemap? Or is the
> overlay only more important than the basemap if the overlay comes from OSM?
>
>
> In a basemap/overlay data constellation, I would generally
sent from a phone
> On 13. Aug 2019, at 20:19, Kathleen Lu wrote:
>
> And to Martin's point, which would you consider more important, the overlay
> of rare information, the gas stations, or the basemap? Or is the overlay only
> more important than the basemap if the overlay comes from OSM?
https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ is a very interesting example.
On my screen, the attribution clearly stretches longer than the width
of the map.
It's funny that you mention that, i contacted them, they weren't even
aware they were using OpenStreetMap. They even said their data was "open
https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ is a very interesting example. On my
screen, the attribution clearly stretches longer than the width of the map.
Is your opinion then that they should attribute similar to your European
Commission example of "correct" attribution
Another lovely example from our OSMF Corporate Member.
https://blog.mapbox.com/designing-the-treasure-map-style-4318390ad81c
Also feel free to check every hyperlink on that page. If you find any
attribution, let me know. Might be the case that it's not 50% OSM...
Even on the guide that
Hi Martin,
For another perspective, imagine someone making a world map with 85%
OpenStreetMap data and 15% XY inc. data, if someone looks on a part of
this map which is fed by these 15% XY data, you would not want to have
it incorrectly attributed to OpenStreetMap (although we are generally
sent from a phone
On 10. Aug 2019, at 11:27, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
>> can't they use more than one data source?
>> Yes, i do agree. Sounds like a good argument to remove the 50% of the
>> guideline.
>>
> Yes, i do agree. Sounds like a good argument to remove the 50% of the
> guideline.
>
Oh right that sounds fair...not.
Same applies to this https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ theres Mapbox
logo, there's VOST logo, then under "i" crap load of sources...oh yeh
that's OSM for sure, i know my edits well. clearly the 50% rule needs to
be removed from the guidance as users are
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:27, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> It's even hard to recommend apps like Maps.me when they don't
> attribute Openstreetmap, instead putting their own logo in the lower
> right corner.
>
> If people don't know that OSM is the source of the data in a map, they
> won't know how
On 09.08.19 16:35, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
> altogether.
This idea makes a lot of sense. Especially as both the guideline draft
and the current FAQ already allow this "if space is limited":
> Because OpenStreetMap is its
So maybe it is an unauthorized use of Mapbox. Anyone can sign up free.
You should report it to Mapbox.
Nah, they stop replying me, they must have me on blacklist. Which goes a
bit against their values "*Be respectful and humble.* To everyone —
always." https://www.mapbox.com/about/values/
Kathleen Lu wrote:
> "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean?
> Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others
> in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources,
> after
> a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the
I'm just an individual mapper who would like more people to be aware
of Openstreetmap. I'm not a professional cartographer, nor do I have
any ties to any map providers.
My concern right now is that most of my friends and family are
completely unaware of the existence of Openstreetmap, even though
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:27 PM Nuno Caldeira
wrote:
> Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is completely
> missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's missing and that
> it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where they are getting their
> data (the
Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is
completely missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's
missing and that it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where
they are getting their data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If
they are looking into it,
On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote:
>
> "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." [...]
I am sorry but this is completely distorting the ODbL.
"reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, ... aware" means
that the calculation on what effect the specific form of attribution
Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is completely
missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's missing and that
it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where they are getting their
data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If they are looking into it, then
On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> For better understanding, you claimed "this looks pretty much like
> being written by corporate representatives", and I pointed out that
> one of the items in point 2 that you object to was written by me in
> 2012, so not a corporate
On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> These new guidelines say that, for 480px+ screens, hiding OSM
> attribution behind a click is not acceptable.
Unless "OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part
of the visible map rendering" - which is the case for
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Just for understanding what second rate attribution is: For example
> the map on the bottom right of:
> https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran
> printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution)
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
If you look at Apple Maps, and for example zoomed into some place in Denmark,
there is an i-button which brings you to an overlay which has a TomTom logo and
a link „and others“
while in Denmark the data is from OpenStreetMap. IMHO this second rate
attribution
. Plus, if anyone went to court trying to enforce something that OSMF
recommended that was outside the licence, they would lose, and perhaps
be forced by the court to pay attorney's fees.
Maybe individual contributors might feel "scary" of the attorney fees,
but probably not these
On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> I disagree that there is no harm. [...]
Not sure if you noticed but my argument was the inherent asymmetry of
the situation when creating a guideline with recommendations. If there
is harm like "hurt feelings" from erring on the side of caution in
Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on
top of an image
As written on CC-BY-SA
*Attribution*.
If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the
Licensed Material:
1.
sent from a phone
> On 9. Aug 2019, at 14:19, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to
> be at least on the same level of
> prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service
> providers or publicists",
I disagree that there is no harm. The credibility point goes both ways.
While no one could sue OSMF for recommending something that is not required
by the license, OSMF would lose the trust of data users, mappers, and any
adjudicative tribunals.
And it would be misleading and harmful to anyone who
Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on top of
an image or that no interaction is allowed???
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira
wrote:
> So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the bellow quote
> was not true?
>
> Both licenses are “By
On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out
> reasonable guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are
> unreasonable and not tied to the language of the licence, then no
> one, either users of the data or judges, will listen to
On Friday 09 August 2019, Dave F via talk wrote:
> Hi
>
> Static Images.
>
> "Static images should be generally attributed the same way as dynamic
> images, " I agree & a way to enable users to easily add attribution
> needs to be created. The Share>Image feature on the main page should
>
So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the bellow
quote was not true?
Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F
I agree, this would be more snappy and more international. It woulrd not be
necessary to translate the attribution for various languages. By shortening
the attribution, their would be less excuses to not attribute on the map.
Pierre
Le vendredi 9 août 2019 10 h 40 min 27 s UTC−4,
> Guidelines by the licensor
>
> On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users of our
> data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a final decision
> on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are helpful to *avoid *disputes
> arising in the first place and can
* What's the guidance on scenarios where software does not ship with OSM
data, and does not display online maps, but e.g. allows downloading map
data for offline use? Would it be acceptable to make the license
information part of the download process, or is it still required that
attribution is
Às 14:56 de 09/08/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:
On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It is a community guideline - a recommendation of the community on how
to work with OSM data to comply with the license. No data user has to
follow the guideline - the only binding document
Thank you for your work! I believe that clearly documenting our
expectations is a very important step towards solving the current
problems surrounding attribution. It will help well-intentioned data
users to avoid accidentally messing up OSM attribution, and it leaves
fewer excuses for the less
Hi
Static Images.
"Static images should be generally attributed the same way as dynamic
images, " I agree & a way to enable users to easily add attribution
needs to be created. The Share>Image feature on the main page should
automatically image stamp the attribution into the corner. "images
I concur, this becomes long and unwieldy fast in my own language and to fully
capture it requires a full sentence, with a comma for clarity even.
Behind OpenStreetMap the brand we have contributors amongst others.
9. ágúst 2019 kl. 14:40, skrifaði "Frederik Ramm" :
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if we
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:35 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
> altogether.
>
I agree, I've often felt that the OpenStreetMap Contributors was unwieldy.
If we agree to the change, I imagine that OpenStreetMap would need to be
Hi,
I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
altogether.
The term "OpenStreetMap Contributors" is the unwieldy; it just sounds
strange to say "this is a map made by OpenStreetMap contributors" when
what we really want to say is "this is OpenStreetMap". When translated
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 08:41, Simon Poole wrote:
> to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document
Some thoughts:
> www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
openstreetmap.org/copyright (without "www") works, and should be
preferred (several occurrences).
> Our requested attribution is "©
On Friday 09 August 2019, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
> I think we move in different mapper communities as "mapping for the
> reward of being recognized by external data users" has never even
> been on my list, or of those mappers I know, of reasons for why we
> map.
Please don't twist my
On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > It does not in any way address the problem of second rate
> > attribution (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of
> > the map service or the media outlet publishing the map) is being
> > attributed more prominently than OSM.
>
>
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution
> (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service
> or the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more
> prominently than OSM.
That is not something that the ODbL
I think we move in different mapper communities as "mapping for the reward of
being recognized by external data users" has never even been on my list, or of
those mappers I know, of reasons for why we map.
Of course everyones self-image is their own, so I don't know about your claim
of there
About the 50% exception. i recently had to be unpleasant with Fatmap
(their app and website https://fatmap.com/), after 2 months of zero
action from their side. Source
https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1136624467000602624 after my
message on the 3rd of August, they contacted me via
SimonPoole wrote:
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we
> would appreciate feedback on.
This is really good, and very much in accordance with both the text of the
ODbL and the long-standing precedents set by the osm.org/copyright page.
Thank you.
Two small wording
Hi Simon,
This guideline is a great piece of work, thanks a lot to all the participants.
Inevitably, this will be too much or not enough for anybody, however I find the
content reasonable and in line with what I understood from current written
expectations.
A few more mockups, notably for
I am strongly against this in the current form because it addresses none
of the major issues about corporate attribution of OSM (or lack
thereof).
1) It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution
(i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service or
56 matches
Mail list logo
