[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Clifford Snow clifford at snowandsnow.us
Sun Sep 8 21:34:38 UTC 2019


On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:24 PM Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:

> On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> >
> > But in any case the guideline refers to the  "visible map rendering".
> > At least in conventional use of the term, aerial imagery is not a
> > map, but if you so which we could surely add a definition for "map"
> > that makes it clear that we are referring to the rendering of map
> > vector data and similar and not image-like layers.
>
> I think i have made my point that your concept of quantifying data
> fractions is based on a very fragile understanding of the granularity
> of the data involved - not a good basis for any kind of universal
> rules.
>
> Yes, you can try patching the holes in this concept by re-defining what
> a map is but at the end of the day to define a relative fraction of OSM
> data use as a quantitative cutoff for an 'attribution light' is just a
> bad idea IMO.
>

Christoph,
What would you recommend and how can it be implemented and tested to insure
compliance with the license? How does the user of OSM data figure out what
data is counted in the threshold for requiring full attribution. Especially
when the OSM usage may just be a basemap from a 3rd party tile server.

Using examples like:
1. Using just the coastal shoreline in the basemap
2. Using OSM basemap in 1 along with roads, rivers and water bodies
3. Using OSM basemap with 2 and buildings
etc.

Best,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190908/7766a7fe/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list