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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Mar 2 08:25:23 UTC 2019

On 02/03/19 10:39, Simon Poole wrote:
> Am 01.03.2019 um 23:29 schrieb Stefan Keller:
>> 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!
> The, rather old, issue with that, is that it stops people from providing
> better attribution (again old example: on map attribution vs. a
> paragraph underneath). Any guidance should, IMHO, just lay down the
> rules for the minimal acceptable attribution but not limit how that can
> be improved on.
> Simon

Also the use of the word 'guidance' and 'must' is conflicting...

>> :Stefan
>> 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.

More information about the talk mailing list