[OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

Matt Amos zerebubuth at gmail.com
Fri Jan 11 16:21:34 GMT 2013


On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com> wrote:
> ## Proposal
>
> Inspired by successful campaigns like "Intel Inside" and "Fair Trade", this RFC proposes an OpenStreetMap contributor mark for use on OpenStreetMap based maps. The goal of the OSM contributor mark is to be adopted by as many OSM data users as possible and on as many OSM based maps as possible, thus creating more awareness of the value of free and open geographic data.

this sounds like an interesting idea. it's worth noting that the ODbL
requires a textual attribution, and we suggest a link to the
"copyright" page [1] where it is appropriate to the medium. are you
suggesting that the OSM contributor mark would be an additional,
voluntary, on-screen display?

from your examples it seems that you'd consider this mark to be a
replacement for the required textual attribution - is that right?

also, i am confused by the "contributor" part of it - isn't this an
"OSM data user mark"?

> With these goals in mind
>
> - the mark should be compelling and recognizable (i.e. not generic).

i find this hammer-in-teardrop symbol to be very generic, and not very
compelling.

> - it should work off maps in cases where thumbnail maps need to be attributed e.g. in mobile devices
> - the mark should be clearly distinct from common map user interface elements.
> - the mark should link to a page on openstreetmap.org that explains the openness of OSM data and its local, community driven nature.

this sounds like a general "about" page to me. which is fine - we need
a good "about" page, and the example you've given looks good. a few
points i noticed:
 - its very graphically heavy
 - the explanation its trying to provide is mostly off-screen, and (at
least on my display) initially occupies a tiny area in the lower left
of the screen. if this is the important part of the page, rather than
the picture, shouldn't it be more prominent?
 - as ppawel has already pointed out, it's pretty radically and
confusingly differently styled to the rest of the OSM sites.
 - (minor) probably better to link to learnosm than the wiki? seems
rather cruel to subject someone to the wiki when it might be only the
second OSM page they see ;-)

cheers,

matt



More information about the talk mailing list