[OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark
Jeff Meyer
jeff at gwhat.org
Wed Jan 16 22:23:49 GMT 2013
Why is it clear that the hammer couldn't be a replacement for the OSM
copyright?
Has the Legal WG stated that a symbol that linked to our copyright &
license statements would not meet the requirements of the ODBL?
Right now, I think we're all speculating.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com> wrote:
>
> The edit concept is very interesting. This was something crossing my mind
> as well when writing up the response to design feedback today. If we had
> very direct instructions for editing in OSM, we could push users pretty
> directly to that. The main problem for using the edit paradigm as a guiding
> light for the mark proposed here is that many maps made of OSM data aren't
> actually live updated or not updated at all. This led us to throw away an
> early version of the mark which used an edit pen. I hope to share more of
> our previous mark designs soon in a follow up post, I think this is
> worthwhile fleshing out more.
>
> My second point is this: The central idea of this proposal is to promote
> OSM even if OSM is really just providing the data. I feel we won't get much
> pick up if we promote an additional element for maps that are produced
> works, ever more often on mobile, ever more often composed from mutliple
> sources.
>
> It's clear now that the hammer won't be an acceptable replacement to "©
> OpenStreetMap contributors" but I'm hoping we can come up with something
> that is all of the below:
>
> - satisfactory from a legal standpoint
> - attractive to click through
> - sticky as a symbol
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Kai Krueger <kakrueger at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > may I throw a related, but slightly different concept, out there for
> > discussion?
> >
> > I think some of the confusion between "contributor mark" and "attribution
> > mark" is that they may be entirely different things. From the design I
> have
> > seen so far it seems indeed more like a "contributor mark" than an
> > "attribution mark", but you are planning on using it as an "attribution
> > mark"
> >
> > I'll give an example to try and clarify what I mean by "contributor
> mark" as
> > opposed to "attribution mark":
> >
> > Wikipedia have OpenStreetMap integration into articles. I.e. if you open
> a
> > geocoded wikipedia article you can click in the top right corner on
> either
> > the globe symbol in e.g. the English Wikipedia or the textual link "Map"
> in
> > e.g. the German Wikipedia which opens an inline map into the article
> showing
> > the place based on an OSM map.
> >
> > There were considerations on adding an "edit" link to the map, as it
> would
> > a) be fitting to Wikipedia and b) help OSM gain new contributors as it
> can
> > capitalize on the huge user base of Wikipedia.
> >
> > However, one concern with adding an edit link was to explain to the
> > Wikipedia user why after clicking on the edit link they suddenly landed
> on
> > this "odd" page called OpenStreetMap which wants a new user name and
> > password from you. How does this relate to Wikipedia where they actually
> > wanted to be? What is the concept behind OpenStreetMap? How and what can
> I
> > edit?
> >
> > So the idea was to redirect first time map editors (not logged into OSM
> and
> > don't have an OSM cookie) via an explanatory contributor page before
> sending
> > them to the editor page.
> >
> > To Wikipedia users the concept of users editing the content is already
> > familiar, but on many other third party sites that use OSM maps, the
> > relation between the page they came from and OSM is likely even less
> clear
> > to users.
> >
> > Therefor having people redirect through a explanatory page would be even
> > more helpful. I think the contributor page as presented here could be a
> > really nice basis for such a page.
> >
> > So instead of replacing attribution, the contributor mark is an
> additional
> > component acting as a well recognizable "edit this map" button with the
> > underlying explanatory page for new contributors.
> >
> > OSM could then encourage everyone who uses OSM maps to add this
> contributor
> > mark / button to really try and capitalize the growing share of OSM users
> > into new mappers by providing a more user friendly integration. To
> Website
> > providers this would also be a benefit, as with including a few lines of
> > simple html / javascript, they can help improve the maps they are using
> and
> > identify them selves as real supporters to the OSM movement.
> >
> > In that case imho the size and design of the current proposed
> "contributor
> > mark" is much more appropriate than as an "attribution mark"
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Kai
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-OSM-contributor-mark-tp5743962p5744950.html
> > Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> Alex Barth
> http://twitter.com/lxbarth
> tel (+1) 202 250 3633
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
--
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
jeff at gwhat.org
206-676-2347
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> osm: Historical
OSM<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_OSM>
/ my OSM user page <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer>
t: @GWHAThistory <https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory>
f: GWHAThistory <https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130116/6e45a61e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the talk
mailing list