[OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Fri Mar 1 10:25:56 UTC 2019

Just a couple of general comments on this.

- The LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance
this year see

- I would have preferred that the discussion take place when we've
actually written something, because some of the issues raised have been
settled since at least 2014, including obtaining legal advice on what 
"reasonably calculated" is, but that's life :-). In any case the
community can expect a draft guideline for discussion in the upcoming

And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the results
of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 which a) states
that the attribution is be default expanded, and b) that should be the
case "/whereever possible" /which in our understanding//limits the use
of a default collapsed attribution to cases where it is physically
impossible to show the expanded version, for example very small map
snippets.  In 2014 we felt that this was acceptable (we don't have an
formal statement on this iirc), and I would go out on a limb and say
that it would still be considered a reasonable guideline./


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190301/e83c56d6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190301/e83c56d6/attachment.sig>

More information about the talk mailing list