<div dir="ltr"><div><font face="Arial"> <a class="gmail-m_-801994039712703628moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/" target="_blank">https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/</a> 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 <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html">https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html</a>, where some of the attribution is visible immediately, and the rest after clicking? <br></font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial">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?<br></font></div><div><font face="Arial"> </font></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:33 AM Nuno Caldeira <<a href="mailto:nunocapelocaldeira@gmail.com">nunocapelocaldeira@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">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Arial">Hi Martin,</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">
</font></p><blockquote type="cite"><font face="Arial">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 the
principal data provider).</font></blockquote><font face="Arial">
Well, the example i gave previously
<a class="gmail-m_-801994039712703628moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/" target="_blank">https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/</a> is a good example of what
you are saying. What do you do to fix it? Mapbox will say
nothing or "believe this is the common, VOST won't say anything.
Meanwhile 99.9% of that map is OSM a the gas station status
update is provided by Waze. Sounds fair doesn't it?</font><p></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">
</font></p><blockquote type="cite"><font face="Arial">
<div>I believe the 50% rule is ok, if it refers to the
displayed objects on the screen (although this can also be
arbitrary, since you can always split a way, or interpolate
nodes to get more of them).</div>
<div>Imagine a map which chooses a different data provider per
country. For zoomed in maps (you only see data from one
provider) you would want this one provider prominently
attributed. If you attribute to someone else more
prominently and show the actual data provider only in
„others“, you will inevitably create a wrong impression
about the source, and if it’s us who miss out on visible
attribution, we should care.</div>
</font></blockquote><font face="Arial">
</font><p></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Good that you mention this. On my email from
10th of October 2018 to facebook and Mapbox (both stopped
replying), i pointed out these examples which have zero issues
about having multiple sources being attributed visibly and not
hiding them:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">
</font></p><blockquote type="cite"><font face="Arial">
<p>Microsoft - Uses HERE and OSM and attributes both visibly
on the footer <a href="https://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=48.187141%2C%2016.349561&q=48.187141%2C16.349561&cp=48.18694871145921%7E16.349901334904583&lvl=18&encType=1" target="_blank">https://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=48.187141%2C%2016.349561&q=48.187141%2C16.349561&cp=48.18694871145921~16.349901334904583&lvl=18&encType=1</a><br>
</p>
<p>ARCGIS Web - Uses OSM and ESRI data, credits both <a href="https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fae788aa91e54244b161b59725dcbb2a" target="_blank">https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fae788aa91e54244b161b59725dcbb2a</a></p>
<p>European Commission - credits OSM and other sources <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html" target="_blank">http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html</a>
and <a href="http://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/copernicus-emergency-management-service#zoom=2&lat=23.42974&lon=16.28085&layers=00B0T" target="_blank">http://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/copernicus-emergency-management-service#zoom=2&lat=23.42974&lon=16.28085&layers=00B0T</a></p>
</font></blockquote><font face="Arial">
</font><p></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Sadly, some say this is hard to implement. The
above sites, must have a hell of a research UX dept to make it
possible and others just say it's hard. Google does the same on
"dynamic attribution". It's not rocket science, especially when
it's for desktop use, there's plenty of space to attribute
visibly. It's just excuses.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">
</font></p><blockquote type="cite"><font face="Arial">
<div>What about maps that display an overlay over a basemap?
This would lead to the overlay data provider mostly being
pushed in the second row because it is quantitatively less,
but the overlay data might be the rare unique data that is
interesting. In case someone displayed an OpenStreetMap
based overlay over a different background, why would we
deliberately renounce from attribution in these cases?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</font></blockquote><font face="Arial">
We shouldn't as it would violate the license.<br>
</font><p></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">
</font></p><blockquote type="cite"><font face="Arial">It is crucial that the 50% relate to the
actually visible map features, and not to the total map. If
the latter was possible, you could just fill your db with
random crap in the middle of the ocean and distort the
proportion.</font></blockquote><font face="Arial">
Obviously, we know those dirty tricks. Fatmap is a perfect
example of that
<a class="gmail-m_-801994039712703628moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://fatmap.com/adventures/@38.6755407,-9.1596113,3096.1899062,-40.2439178,19.7162561,31.6575309,normal" target="_blank">https://fatmap.com/adventures/@38.6755407,-9.1596113,3096.1899062,-40.2439178,19.7162561,31.6575309,normal</a>
and there's is plenty of room to add the attribution visibly. <br>
</font><p></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">To be honest i'm kinda fed up of all of this,
nothing happens. And it's a shame stating "the license doesn't
say this or that", it neither says you must attribute with the
exact text </font><font face="Arial">“© OpenStreetMap
contributors”, must be unreasonable calculated to acknowledge.
Common sense and fairness is all needed, not crappy legal
interpretations and placing fear for legal actions from
corporate interests. Sadly i'm starting to believe the concerns
that some have shared on the list that OSMF is being
"controlled" by corporate interests and not by the spirit that
it was created.<br>
</font></p>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div>