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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Mon Sep 9 00:29:35 UTC 2019


Am 09.09.2019 um 01:41 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> Re: > where to put the attribution when multiple sources have been
> used in a map rendering and OSM is not the source of the majority of
> the data presented.
>
> On (or on top of) the rendered map, in the same font weight as any
> other logo or other copyright notice, and preferably with a clickable
> hyperlink to https://www.openstreetmap.org (only required if this is
> also offered for other features on the map).
>
> The (c)Openstreetmap should be included if any other attribution is
> included. If there isn't room for (c)OSM, then there should not be any
> other logo or copyright on the map either. In in this case a generic
> "i" or "(c)" link could be included to another page - so the only
> situation where Openstreetamp attribution should not be shown on the
> map is where there is not room for any attribution or logo.

(c)OSM is not sufficient nor something that we could require as
attribution for a host of different reasons. So could we please stay on
topic.

>> Nobody is making any exceptions.
> The currently policy seems to allow rendered maps to show the logo of
> the map renderer and copyrights of other data sources on the map if
> they make up the majority of the data shown, without showing the
> Openstreetmap copyright notice or link. I think it's clear that
> several contributors disagree with this exception, myself included.

There is no current guidance for the use of multiple sources which is
why we are in the progress of  developing one.

The reason why it is completely sensible to not require on map
attribution when OSM data is not the major part of the data presented,
is because OSM is not the major part of the data presented. We should
not be interested in having wonky data from, choose your favourite OSM
competitor, being attributed to us (btw we get enough mistaken
complaints as is) and there is a trade off between accuracy and the room
required to express that and the simplicity and visibility of the
attribution.

As laid out in the intro to the document, the attribution that is
provided should not be confusing and should enable the person
interacting with the produced work to determine what data is obtained
from "the database", aka OSM in our case. Blanket attribution to OSM of
all sources used does not do that.

Simon

> -Joseph Eisenberg
>
> (Disclosure: Just a volunteer contributor as a mapper and at
> Openstreetmap-carto, I don't have any financial interest in this
> project, nor will the copyright policy directly affect me, except when
> I print out maps, I suppose)
>
> On 9/9/19, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>> Am 08.09.2019 um 23:52 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
>>> On Sunday 08 September 2019, Clifford Snow wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> I think any substantial use of OSM data should be attributed in a way
>>> that is "reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
>>> views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced
>>> Work aware that Content was obtained from" - like the license says.  No
>>> exceptions.
>> Nobody is making any exceptions.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>

-------------- 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/20190909/ab719432/attachment.sig>


More information about the talk mailing list