[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Nuno Caldeira nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com
Tue Aug 13 18:50:25 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.

It's funny that you mention that, i contacted them, they weren't even 
aware they were using OpenStreetMap. They even said their data was "open 
data", when in reality comes from Waze.... But hey they use 
OpenStreetMap tiles via Mapbox with a bit of shy attribution.

And seems Mapbox doesn't know how to set a proper hyperlink on that page 
it heads to https://www.openstreetmap.org/about/ instead of 

But what's the arm? Mapbox logo, Waze and everything else comes first 
and get proper exposure like it should.

> Is your opinion then that they should attribute similar to your 
> European Commission example of "correct" attribution 
> https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html, 
> where some of the attribution is visible immediately, and the rest 
> after clicking?

I see OpenStreetMap being attributed 100% of the time. Maybe they should 
just hide like our Corporate Member of OSMF.Or not even attribute at 
all, like the ones i shared yesterday.

> 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?
As i pointed out they didn't knew it was OSM. About the importance, let 
me remind you of Facebook reply telling me "static maps not being 
informative". Sure, if they are not just don't use them at all, a blank 
tile will look much better, feel free to use it instead.Attribution is 
really such a hard task to fulfill.

If you browse the portuguese press about VOST map, you will notice 
endless references to Waze. You know how many to OpenStreetMap? Less 
than one....zero. Another lovely opportunity loss to advocate for 
OpenStreetMap and open data.



> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:33 AM Nuno Caldeira 
> <nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com <mailto:nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
>     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/20190813/694d476e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the talk mailing list