[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Kathleen Lu kathleen.lu at mapbox.com
Tue Aug 13 18:19:42 UTC 2019

 https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ 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
where some of the attribution is visible immediately, and the rest after

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?

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:33 AM Nuno Caldeira <nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com>

> Hi Martin,
> 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).
> Well, the example i gave previously https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/
> 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?
> 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).
> 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.
> 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:
> Microsoft - Uses HERE and OSM and attributes both visibly on the footer
> 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
> <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>
> ARCGIS Web - Uses OSM and ESRI data, credits both
> https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fae788aa91e54244b161b59725dcbb2a
> European Commission  - credits OSM and other sources
> http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html
> and
> http://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/copernicus-emergency-management-service#zoom=2&lat=23.42974&lon=16.28085&layers=00B0T
> 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.
> 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?
> We shouldn't as it would violate the license.
> 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.
> Obviously, we know those dirty tricks. Fatmap is a perfect example of that
> https://fatmap.com/adventures/@38.6755407,-9.1596113,3096.1899062,-40.2439178,19.7162561,31.6575309,normal
> and there's is plenty of room to add the attribution visibly.
> 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 “© 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190813/a28f737c/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list