<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Osm has some advantages. It's shorter. We're not really just a street map. Most people call it osm (apart from old osmers). OpenStreetMap appears in the URL already so don't need to repeat it.</div><div><br></div><div>Reminds me that most non technical people call Wikipedia just "wiki" for some reason.<br><br>Steve</div><div><br>On Dec 19, 2011, at 3:34 AM, Tom Chance <<a href="mailto:tom@acrewoods.net">tom@acrewoods.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 December 2011 09:20, Andy Allan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gravitystorm@gmail.com">gravitystorm@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 18 December 2011 23:04, SteveCoast <<a href="mailto:steve@asklater.com">steve@asklater.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Many of them have fallen in to the "OSM text plus a pin" bucket with some interesting variations on how to represent a pin.<br>
<br>
</div>Given that pins on a map is pretty much the antithesis of what we are<br>
all about, it's worth updating your briefing to discourage them. I'd<br>
even prefer the sweaty-armpits logo (#79)!</blockquote><div><br></div><div> +1</div><div><br></div><div>My first two reactions are:</div><div><br></div><div>- our current logo concept (data shown in map) isn't half bad</div>
<div><br></div><div>- why this obsession with the "OSM" abbreviation, which will mean nothing to most visitors?</div><div><br></div><div>Tom</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><a href="http://tom.acrewoods.net">http://tom.acrewoods.net</a> <a href="http://twitter.com/tom_chance">http://twitter.com/tom_chance</a><br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>