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

Stefan Keller sfkeller at gmail.com
Fri Mar 1 22:29:33 UTC 2019

I applaud that the LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our
attribution guidance.

IMO the sentence in question MUST be changed from "should" to MUST!


P.S. I really would like to collect once in another thread the hidden
agendas behind those
* argueing against proper attribution of OSM (why trying to hide to
mention OSM?),
* calling shame license violators "shenanigans" (so there are violators?),
* questioning the legal status of OSMF (why spreading FUD?)

Am Fr., 1. März 2019 um 22:55 Uhr schrieb Tomas Straupis
<tomasstraupis at gmail.com>:
> 2019-03-01, pn, 17:55 Christoph Hormann rašė:
> > As long as data sources you use have been produced by people who got
> > paid for their work (through either taxpayer money or private
> > investments) the discussion is moot - that is not the same league, that
> > isn't even the same sport.  You give first rate attribution to OSM and
> > second rate attribution to everything else.
>   How/why is the financing of data source part relevant?
>   How would you calculate the prominence of data source to split them
> into "displayed by default" and "displayed after pressing 'data
> sources'"?
>   While for data visualisations you could calculate number of objects
> displayed, what would you do for maps and especially thematic maps?
> The latter two would have a specific target group with specific
> interests and a specific idea/information to be communicated which
> could take a smaller area of the map. A thematic map of X with a
> basemap of Y could have visually most part covered by Y, but most
> important part of such a map is X.
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

More information about the talk mailing list