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

Mikel Maron mikel.maron at gmail.com
Fri Mar 1 12:05:06 UTC 2019


Just as my opinions here don’t represent the osmf board, they don’t represent Mapbox either.
Personally, I don’t care much about the details of attribution either way. I love to see it and regularly look for it in every map I come across. I tweeted this three weeks ago 
https://twitter.com/mikel/status/1094603703384973312. I’m also under zero illusions that anyone else but people in osm notice or care.
As enthusiastic as I am to see osm “in the wild”, I’m irritated by license shaming. I know, it’s irritating by design. I don’t believe it works and just casts a bad light of OSM.
The main motivation that triggered this discussion about attribution, is to paraphrase, that the “no one knows OSM”. 
However much OSM is known now, I agree, it should be known more. OSM is the most interesting story in mapping of the last ten years. There are so many good stories.
To make sure OSM is known takes a serious communication and marketing strategy, resources to build relationships with press, etc.
Certainly attribution is important. LWG is working on better guidelines. 
Publicly shaming on a regular basis hurts our opportunity to be better known. Or we become known for being a grumpy underdog.

Mikel

On Friday, March 1, 2019, 5:25 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

 
Just a couple of general comments on this.
 
- The LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance this year seehttps://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10
 
- 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 months.
 
 
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. 
 
 
Simon

  

 
 _______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190301/02e15155/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list