<div dir="ltr"><div>Given that the attribution is exactly as requested on the website, I would imagine any issues with below 993 layout pixels is an oversight or a bug. A friendly email would suffice, but it certainly does not merit a letter from OSMF. You are free to send the email yourself.</div><div><br></div><div>OSM does not contain residential quality of land. Even assuming there exists a Derivative Database with nontrivial transforms, that would only cover the shapes of the polygons. Actually quality scores would be not be subject to sharealike, per the Collective Database Guideline.<br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:16 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">sent from a phone<br>
<br>
> On 27. Oct 2020, at 22:15, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <<a href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the polygons match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative database, then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.<br>
<br>
<br>
in any case they are using a significant amount of OpenStreetMap data<br>
and must attribute. They are actively hiding map attribution for all<br>
screens with less than 993 layout pixels width (i.e. all phones and<br>
most tablets):<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/css/e888f00.css" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/css/e888f00.css</a><br>
<br>
@media (max-width: 992px) {<br>
.leaflet-control-attribution {<br>
display: none;<br>
}<br>
}<br>
<br>
This alone merits a letter from OSMF. I have been lucky finding a<br>
mention of osm hidden in the fourth paragraph of "über<br>
Wohnlagenkarte", but it does not link to osm and which has no mention<br>
of copyright or the ODbL.<br>
<br>
The transforms they are applying to OSM data do not seem trivial to<br>
me. Can someone explain to me why we are not interested in the data<br>
about the residential quality of the land?<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Martin<br>
</blockquote></div>