Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Andreas Labres]

On 16.01.13 20:08, Alex Barth wrote:

> My initial writeup could have been clearer: This RFC _does_ seek to replace 
> the currently recommended line "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors" linking to 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright with a visual mark linking to a future 
> http://openstreetmap.org/contributors.

Attribution (which is what you talk about) consists of naming the author and the
license. Naming the author (expressis verbis: naming "OpenStreetMap
contributors") directly on the website is a good feature that shouldn't be
omitted. It stays there on screenshots and leaves no doubt that "it comes from 
OSM".

BTW, I don't like your hammer & drop symbol (even don't see an explanation for 
it).

The link serves as the second thing: naming the license. This is twofold:

- stating ODbL for the data
- stating CC BY-SA for the map tiles (especially for the default ones)

Of course, the link landing page (could read /copyright, /license --
/contributors for me seems not so good) could be made "more pleasant", could be
an overlay window etc.

Naming (for Austria) Wien, Vbg. and Tirol (plus the wording!) on /copyright was
requested by the CC BY license holders (which came from the fact that there
already were such attributions).

/al

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Difference between redaction and revert

[maning sambale]

Dear everyone,

I noticed a series of redactions [0, 1, 2] by "pnorman redaction
revert" within our area.  I don't intend to discuss the merits of the
redaction here since upon looking at the 3 changesets, it seems to me
that the removal of data is valid (based on the changeset comment
"Redaction of Google as a source").

In some cases, I also do reverts around my patch if I know that the
source is tainted.  My question is, in what case should we ourselves
revert or ask the DWG for redaction? AFAIK, redaction "hides" the
version history of the redacted changeset/feature [3] as against a
regular revert which still includes the complete history.  However,
reverts (using JOSM) is much easier (and faster) since it doesn't need
moderator privileges and regular users can do it.

[0] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14679315
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14679302
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14679298
[3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/142690659/history

-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Rob Nickerson]

Why not keep the "© Openstreetmap contributors" bit and add a "Report an
issue / Add to the map" type button or text? This would then link to a very
simple page as proposed (but themed to better match OSMs brand) which also
explains how to add a bug/notice using [1] and how to get more involved
with editing using Potlatch2 / iD.

Rob

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Top_Ten_Tasks#OpenStreetBugs.2Fnotes_integration
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Chris Hill]

On 16/01/13 22:33, Christian Quest wrote:
The current legal requirement is only about a text because no official 
icon was existing.


If one is chosen, what prevents us to upgrade the requirements to 
leave the choice between the "© OpenStreetMap contributors" or the new 
chosen icon ?



To me the copyright symbol, ©, is understood worldwide to have a 
specific meaning, replacing it with a new made-up symbol loses the 
meaning completely. I do like the idea of a small, clickable icon to 
identify OSM, but I don't see how that replaces the well understood © 
symbol and attribution statement. I would be happy to reduce 
'Openstreetmap' to 'OSM' for brevity.


MapQuest have a small icon that they request people embed into any site 
using their Open map tiles (based on OSM data). I believe they follow 
its use to help them build stats or some such. It looks fine, but I add 
"© Openstreetmap contributors" too, as per the licence we spent so long 
struggling to implement.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi Christian,

On 16.01.2013 23:33, Christian Quest wrote:

The current legal requirement is only about a text because no official
icon was existing.


The current legal requirement is not about a text specifically; as Paul 
has written, the current legal requirement is:


"notice ... reasonably calculated to make any
Person ... aware that the Content was obtained from the Database ... and
that it is available under [ODbL]".

It is not for us to upgrade these requirements (it would require Open 
Data Commons to issue a version 1.1 of their license with changed wording).


What we could do is agree that a certain logo/icon/wording is 
"reasonably calculated to make any person aware..." and so on. OSMF does 
have a little bit of leeway there; if they were to say "this counts" 
then it would be hard for anyone to construct a case against it. However 
it is important to keep in mind that contributors have only authorized 
OSMF to redistribute their data under ODbL (via the contributor 
agreement), not under "ODbL with any fancy interpretations that OSMF 
would like to add". If OSMF were to stray too far from the path, 
contributors could claim that OSMF violated the contributor agreement 
and OSMF's right to distribute the data was therefore void. I wouldn't 
want to go there!


I think the "reasonably calculated" is is a relatively high hurdle. 
Especially when an icon is newly introduced, it can hardly be said to be 
"reasonably calculated to make any person aware..."! Personally, I think 
this is practically impossible without including at least the word 
OpenStreetMap spelled out in letters (if not ODbL 1.0 as well). Even 
our, relatively well-known, current logo would be a difficult sell as 
"reasonably calculated" because it isn't *so* well known.


This does, however, border on the "discuss in legal-talk where you're 
likely to find more expert answers".


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Alex Barth]

On Jan 16, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Christian Quest  wrote:

> The current legal requirement is only about a text because no official icon 
> was existing.
> 
> If one is chosen, what prevents us to upgrade the requirements to leave the 
> choice between the "© OpenStreetMap contributors" or the new chosen icon ?

That could work well.

> 
> -- 
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Alex Barth
http://twitter.com/lxbarth
tel (+1) 202 250 3633





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Christian Quest]

The current legal requirement is only about a text because no official icon
was existing.

If one is chosen, what prevents us to upgrade the requirements to leave the
choice between the "© OpenStreetMap contributors" or the new chosen icon ?

-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France -
http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Alex Barth]

On Jan 16, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Jeff Meyer  wrote:

> Why is it clear that the hammer couldn't be a replacement for the OSM 
> copyright?
> 
> Has the Legal WG stated that a symbol that linked to our copyright & license 
> statements would not meet the requirements of the ODBL?

No idea about the legal viability of the hammer. I'm saying this more from 
gauging the overall excitement around the hammer. Saman and I are planning on 
sharing more the thinking behind the specific hammer mark and ideally come up 
with something better. Also: many have noted that there should be at least a 
textual reference to OpenStreetMap in the contributor mark, that's at least a 
given adjustment in my mind.

> 
> Right now, I think we're all speculating.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Alex Barth  wrote:
> 
> The edit concept is very interesting. This was something crossing my mind as 
> well when writing up the response to design feedback today. If we had very 
> direct instructions for editing in OSM, we could push users pretty directly 
> to that. The main problem for using the edit paradigm as a guiding light for 
> the mark proposed here is that many maps made of OSM data aren't actually 
> live updated or not updated at all. This led us to throw away an early 
> version of the mark which used an edit pen. I hope to share more of our 
> previous mark designs soon in a follow up post, I think this is worthwhile 
> fleshing out more.
> 
> My second point is this: The central idea of this proposal is to promote OSM 
> even if OSM is really just providing the data. I feel we won't get much pick 
> up if we promote an additional element for maps that are produced works, ever 
> more often on mobile, ever more often composed from mutliple sources.
> 
> It's clear now that the hammer won't be an acceptable replacement to "© 
> OpenStreetMap contributors" but I'm hoping we can come up with something that 
> is all of the below:
> 
> - satisfactory from a legal standpoint
> - attractive to click through
> - sticky as a symbol
> 
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Kai Krueger  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > may I throw a related, but slightly different concept, out there for
> > discussion?
> >
> > I think some of the confusion between "contributor mark" and "attribution
> > mark" is that they may be entirely different things. From the design I have
> > seen so far it seems indeed more like a "contributor mark" than an
> > "attribution mark", but you are planning on using it as an "attribution
> > mark"
> >
> > I'll give an example to try and clarify what I mean by "contributor mark" as
> > opposed to "attribution mark":
> >
> > Wikipedia have OpenStreetMap integration into articles. I.e. if you open a
> > geocoded wikipedia article you can click in the top right corner on either
> > the globe symbol in e.g. the English Wikipedia or the textual link "Map" in
> > e.g. the German Wikipedia which opens an inline map into the article showing
> > the place based on an OSM map.
> >
> > There were considerations on adding an "edit" link to the map, as it would
> > a) be fitting to Wikipedia and b) help OSM gain new contributors as it can
> > capitalize on the huge user base of Wikipedia.
> >
> > However, one concern with adding an edit link was to explain to the
> > Wikipedia user why after clicking on the edit link they suddenly landed on
> > this "odd" page called OpenStreetMap which wants a new user name and
> > password from you. How does this relate to Wikipedia where they actually
> > wanted to be? What is the concept behind OpenStreetMap? How and what can I
> > edit?
> >
> > So the idea was to redirect first time map editors (not logged into OSM and
> > don't have an OSM cookie) via an explanatory contributor page before sending
> > them to the editor page.
> >
> > To Wikipedia users the concept of users editing the content is already
> > familiar, but on many other third party sites that use OSM maps, the
> > relation between the page they came from and OSM is likely even less clear
> > to users.
> >
> > Therefor having people redirect through a explanatory page would be even
> > more helpful. I think the contributor page as presented here could be a
> > really nice basis for such a page.
> >
> > So instead of replacing attribution, the contributor mark is an additional
> > component acting as a well recognizable "edit this map" button with the
> > underlying explanatory page for new contributors.
> >
> > OSM could then encourage everyone who uses OSM maps to add this contributor
> > mark / button to really try and capitalize the growing share of OSM users
> > into new mappers by providing a more user friendly integration. To Website
> > providers this would also be a benefit, as with including a few lines of
> > simple html / javascript, they can help improve the maps they are using and
> > identify them selves as real supporters to the OSM movement.
> >
> > In that case imho the size and design of the current proposed "contributo

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Jeff Meyer]

Why is it clear that the hammer couldn't be a replacement for the OSM
copyright?

Has the Legal WG stated that a symbol that linked to our copyright &
license statements would not meet the requirements of the ODBL?

Right now, I think we're all speculating.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Alex Barth  wrote:

>
> The edit concept is very interesting. This was something crossing my mind
> as well when writing up the response to design feedback today. If we had
> very direct instructions for editing in OSM, we could push users pretty
> directly to that. The main problem for using the edit paradigm as a guiding
> light for the mark proposed here is that many maps made of OSM data aren't
> actually live updated or not updated at all. This led us to throw away an
> early version of the mark which used an edit pen. I hope to share more of
> our previous mark designs soon in a follow up post, I think this is
> worthwhile fleshing out more.
>
> My second point is this: The central idea of this proposal is to promote
> OSM even if OSM is really just providing the data. I feel we won't get much
> pick up if we promote an additional element for maps that are produced
> works, ever more often on mobile, ever more often composed from mutliple
> sources.
>
> It's clear now that the hammer won't be an acceptable replacement to "©
> OpenStreetMap contributors" but I'm hoping we can come up with something
> that is all of the below:
>
> - satisfactory from a legal standpoint
> - attractive to click through
> - sticky as a symbol
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Kai Krueger  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > may I throw a related, but slightly different concept, out there for
> > discussion?
> >
> > I think some of the confusion between "contributor mark" and "attribution
> > mark" is that they may be entirely different things. From the design I
> have
> > seen so far it seems indeed more like a "contributor mark" than an
> > "attribution mark", but you are planning on using it as an "attribution
> > mark"
> >
> > I'll give an example to try and clarify what I mean by "contributor
> mark" as
> > opposed to "attribution mark":
> >
> > Wikipedia have OpenStreetMap integration into articles. I.e. if you open
> a
> > geocoded wikipedia article you can click in the top right corner on
> either
> > the globe symbol in e.g. the English Wikipedia or the textual link "Map"
> in
> > e.g. the German Wikipedia which opens an inline map into the article
> showing
> > the place based on an OSM map.
> >
> > There were considerations on adding an "edit" link to the map, as it
> would
> > a) be fitting to Wikipedia and b) help OSM gain new contributors as it
> can
> > capitalize on the huge user base of Wikipedia.
> >
> > However, one concern with adding an edit link was to explain to the
> > Wikipedia user why after clicking on the edit link they suddenly landed
> on
> > this "odd" page called OpenStreetMap which wants a new user name and
> > password from you. How does this relate to Wikipedia where they actually
> > wanted to be? What is the concept behind OpenStreetMap? How and what can
> I
> > edit?
> >
> > So the idea was to redirect first time map editors (not logged into OSM
> and
> > don't have an OSM cookie) via an explanatory contributor page before
> sending
> > them to the editor page.
> >
> > To Wikipedia users the concept of users editing the content is already
> > familiar, but on many other third party sites that use OSM maps, the
> > relation between the page they came from and OSM is likely even less
> clear
> > to users.
> >
> > Therefor having people redirect through a explanatory page would be even
> > more helpful. I think the contributor page as presented here could be a
> > really nice basis for such a page.
> >
> > So instead of replacing attribution, the contributor mark is an
> additional
> > component acting as a well recognizable "edit this map" button with the
> > underlying explanatory page for new contributors.
> >
> > OSM could then encourage everyone who uses OSM maps to add this
> contributor
> > mark / button to really try and capitalize the growing share of OSM users
> > into new mappers by providing a more user friendly integration. To
> Website
> > providers this would also be a benefit, as with including a few lines of
> > simple html / javascript, they can help improve the maps they are using
> and
> > identify them selves as real supporters to the OSM movement.
> >
> > In that case imho the size and design of the current proposed
> "contributor
> > mark" is much more appropriate than as an "attribution mark"
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Kai
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-OSM-contributor-mark-tp5743962p5744950.html
> > Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> Alex Barth

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Jeff Meyer]

Apologies for being rhetorical and passive in my prior post. "Maybe" is
incorrect.

The statement "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors" _is definitely_ a required
credit.
See: http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
"You are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt our data, as long as
you credit OpenStreetMap and its contributors."
The page then goes on to describe how to do this credit. This web page
defines our implementation of ODBL para 4.3.(a).

Up to now, I'm not talking only about the existing copyright markings and
not about the teardrop / hammer mark

But, Alex has stated that he *does* want to replace that statement with a
mark (sounds cool to me), so he's suggesting we amend the copyright and
license terms, which might be doable under para 4.3 of the ODBL referenced
by Paul (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/).

In addition, Alex is suggesting that the mark link not the existing
copyright statement, but to a different contributors page, which seems (to
this caveman lawyer) less likely to adhere to para 4.3.

The function of credit/attribution/notification that ODBL-derived data was
a source for a Produced Work is a requirement of the ODBL.

So, we have a requirement for at least 1 mark that references at least
source copyright, etc.
It seems like the options are:
a) Add a better sense & essence of contributors & modifiability to the
existing copyright notice.
b) Add another mark

(a) seems more feasible, as I don't think OSM-related Produced Works want
to add multiple marks to a single map (or would we), but who knows?

We definitely need Legal WG input here.



On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Paweł Paprota  wrote:

> > Isn't the purpose of "OSM and Contributors" to "credit" or "attribute"
> > the
> > source of the map tile data?
> >
>
> Maybe, maybe not. More importantly - the fact that there's a discussion
> what this "mark" tries to communicate means that it fails to do it
> properly in the first place.
>
> At first glance I thought it was just sort of a banner to promote OSM
> but if it is to replace the legal attribution then it's not really doing
> that job. I support Kai's idea about separating the two functions. I
> like the Wikipedia example. It would be really cool to have a widely
> known "edit" button/symbol/"mark" sitting in the corner of embedded maps
> to show that the map is a living thing that can be corrected, enriched
> etc.
>
> I also agree with Tom - naming stuff *is* very important and is
> definitely not a side issue. Right now "contributors mark" suggests at
> least two different things - list of contributors or some kind of award
> for being a contributor and neither of them is true... This stuff should
> really be dead simple and intuitive, if you have to think about it as a
> user, explain, discuss then forget it, it won't work in the wild. Of
> course it's always harder to communicate more with less but that's the
> main challenge I  see here...
>
> Paweł
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
 osm: Historical
OSM
 / my OSM user page 
 t: @GWHAThistory 
 f: GWHAThistory 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Alex Barth]

The edit concept is very interesting. This was something crossing my mind as 
well when writing up the response to design feedback today. If we had very 
direct instructions for editing in OSM, we could push users pretty directly to 
that. The main problem for using the edit paradigm as a guiding light for the 
mark proposed here is that many maps made of OSM data aren't actually live 
updated or not updated at all. This led us to throw away an early version of 
the mark which used an edit pen. I hope to share more of our previous mark 
designs soon in a follow up post, I think this is worthwhile fleshing out more.

My second point is this: The central idea of this proposal is to promote OSM 
even if OSM is really just providing the data. I feel we won't get much pick up 
if we promote an additional element for maps that are produced works, ever more 
often on mobile, ever more often composed from mutliple sources.

It's clear now that the hammer won't be an acceptable replacement to "© 
OpenStreetMap contributors" but I'm hoping we can come up with something that 
is all of the below:

- satisfactory from a legal standpoint
- attractive to click through
- sticky as a symbol

On Jan 16, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Kai Krueger  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> may I throw a related, but slightly different concept, out there for
> discussion?
> 
> I think some of the confusion between "contributor mark" and "attribution
> mark" is that they may be entirely different things. From the design I have
> seen so far it seems indeed more like a "contributor mark" than an
> "attribution mark", but you are planning on using it as an "attribution
> mark"
> 
> I'll give an example to try and clarify what I mean by "contributor mark" as
> opposed to "attribution mark":
> 
> Wikipedia have OpenStreetMap integration into articles. I.e. if you open a
> geocoded wikipedia article you can click in the top right corner on either
> the globe symbol in e.g. the English Wikipedia or the textual link "Map" in
> e.g. the German Wikipedia which opens an inline map into the article showing
> the place based on an OSM map.
> 
> There were considerations on adding an "edit" link to the map, as it would
> a) be fitting to Wikipedia and b) help OSM gain new contributors as it can
> capitalize on the huge user base of Wikipedia.
> 
> However, one concern with adding an edit link was to explain to the
> Wikipedia user why after clicking on the edit link they suddenly landed on
> this "odd" page called OpenStreetMap which wants a new user name and
> password from you. How does this relate to Wikipedia where they actually
> wanted to be? What is the concept behind OpenStreetMap? How and what can I
> edit?
> 
> So the idea was to redirect first time map editors (not logged into OSM and
> don't have an OSM cookie) via an explanatory contributor page before sending
> them to the editor page.
> 
> To Wikipedia users the concept of users editing the content is already
> familiar, but on many other third party sites that use OSM maps, the
> relation between the page they came from and OSM is likely even less clear
> to users.
> 
> Therefor having people redirect through a explanatory page would be even
> more helpful. I think the contributor page as presented here could be a
> really nice basis for such a page.
> 
> So instead of replacing attribution, the contributor mark is an additional
> component acting as a well recognizable "edit this map" button with the
> underlying explanatory page for new contributors.
> 
> OSM could then encourage everyone who uses OSM maps to add this contributor
> mark / button to really try and capitalize the growing share of OSM users
> into new mappers by providing a more user friendly integration. To Website
> providers this would also be a benefit, as with including a few lines of
> simple html / javascript, they can help improve the maps they are using and
> identify them selves as real supporters to the OSM movement.
> 
> In that case imho the size and design of the current proposed "contributor
> mark" is much more appropriate than as an "attribution mark"
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Kai
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-OSM-contributor-mark-tp5743962p5744950.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Alex Barth
http://twitter.com/lxbarth
tel (+1) 202 250 3633





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Réf.: Re: RFC - OSM contributor mark

[THEVENON Julien]

--
Le mer. 16 janv. 2013 20:58 HNEC, Kai Krueger a écrit :

>Hi,
>
>may I throw a related, but slightly different concept, out there for
>discussion?
>
>I think some of the confusion between "contributor mark" and "attribution
>mark" is that they may be entirely different things. From the design I have
>seen so far it seems indeed more like a "contributor mark" than an
>"attribution mark", but you are planning on using it as an "attribution
>mark"
>
>I'll give an example to try and clarify what I mean by "contributor mark" as
>opposed to "attribution mark":
>
>Wikipedia have OpenStreetMap integration into articles. I.e. if you open a
>geocoded wikipedia article you can click in the top right corner on either
>the globe symbol in e.g. the English Wikipedia or the textual link "Map" in
>e.g. the German Wikipedia which opens an inline map into the article showing
>the place based on an OSM map.
>
>There were considerations on adding an "edit" link to the map, as it would
>a) be fitting to Wikipedia and b) help OSM gain new contributors as it can
>capitalize on the huge user base of Wikipedia.
>
>However, one concern with adding an edit link was to explain to the
>Wikipedia user why after clicking on the edit link they suddenly landed on
>this "odd" page called OpenStreetMap which wants a new user name and
>password from you. How does this relate to Wikipedia where they actually
>wanted to be? What is the concept behind OpenStreetMap? How and what can I
>edit?
>
>So the idea was to redirect first time map editors (not logged into OSM and
>don't have an OSM cookie) via an explanatory contributor page before sending
>them to the editor page.
>
>To Wikipedia users the concept of users editing the content is already
>familiar, but on many other third party sites that use OSM maps, the
>relation between the page they came from and OSM is likely even less clear
>to users.
>
>Therefor having people redirect through a explanatory page would be even
>more helpful. I think the contributor page as presented here could be a
>really nice basis for such a page.
>
>So instead of replacing attribution, the contributor mark is an additional
>component acting as a well recognizable "edit this map" button with the
>underlying explanatory page for new contributors.
>
>OSM could then encourage everyone who uses OSM maps to add this contributor
>mark / button to really try and capitalize the growing share of OSM users
>into new mappers by providing a more user friendly integration. To Website
>providers this would also be a benefit, as with including a few lines of
>simple html / javascript, they can help improve the maps they are using and
>identify them selves as real supporters to the OSM movement.
>
>In that case imho the size and design of the current proposed "contributor
>mark" is much more appropriate than as an "attribution mark"
>
>Thoughts?
>
+1
Very interesting idea

Julien


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Paweł Paprota]

> Isn't the purpose of "OSM and Contributors" to "credit" or "attribute"
> the
> source of the map tile data?
> 

Maybe, maybe not. More importantly - the fact that there's a discussion
what this "mark" tries to communicate means that it fails to do it
properly in the first place. 

At first glance I thought it was just sort of a banner to promote OSM
but if it is to replace the legal attribution then it's not really doing
that job. I support Kai's idea about separating the two functions. I
like the Wikipedia example. It would be really cool to have a widely
known "edit" button/symbol/"mark" sitting in the corner of embedded maps
to show that the map is a living thing that can be corrected, enriched
etc.

I also agree with Tom - naming stuff *is* very important and is
definitely not a side issue. Right now "contributors mark" suggests at
least two different things - list of contributors or some kind of award
for being a contributor and neither of them is true... This stuff should
really be dead simple and intuitive, if you have to think about it as a
user, explain, discuss then forget it, it won't work in the wild. Of
course it's always harder to communicate more with less but that's the
main challenge I  see here...

Paweł

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Jeff Meyer]

Isn't the purpose of "OSM and Contributors" to "credit" or "attribute" the
source of the map tile data?

e.g. if FourSquare puts the OSM mark on their maps, they aren't showing
that OSM has contributed to the 4sq map, they are attributing the source of
their tiles to OSM.

The fact that it links to, or mentions, OSM contributors isn't what this
statement or mark is about.
No one would call "(c) Google.com" a "contributor" mark.

The fact that we elect to require reference to Contributors in our credits
or to discuss Contributors on our copyright is something we choose to do
because, well, because OSM rocks.

My elaborate 2 cents...

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Tom Hughes  wrote:

> On 16/01/13 19:08, Alex Barth wrote:
>
>  ## Terminology: "Contributor mark" vs e. g. "Attribution mark"
>>
>> Some have pointed out that 'attribution mark' might be a more accurate
>> name. That might be, I don't want to change up at the moment but definitely
>> a discussion to be had if ever we use this term more "officially" on
>> openstreetmap.org.
>>
>
> I think the problem is that you are already locking in the terminology by
> using "contributors" in the URL of the landing page.
>
> In fact that's my main problem with the terminology - the proposed content
> is not at all what I would expect to see on a page with that URL as the URL
> suggests some sort of list of contributors.
>
>
>  ## Design
>>
>> There were comments on the design being heavy on pictures and not using
>> the current OpenStreetMap.org template. I'm thinking these are good things.
>> With adjustments, I'd love to keep it this way. The pictures help us
>> communicate that OSM is created by many many, many individuals, the full
>> screen page allows us to focus the message. And yes, there is scrolling
>> before hitting the links. This is good as we'll want to have the space for
>> a couple of points to get across before people jump off. It's not the case
>> that we've got great introductory properties to link to right now :) In the
>> future this could change: E. g. as soon as we have great introductory
>> material we could link this more prominently "Get started mapping" above
>> the fold. Or we could come up with a variation of the page that offers a
>> link into an editor placing you right where you left the map.
>>
>> That said, we should work on taking a stronger queue from the overall
>> osm.org appearance to link this ad stronger to OpenStreetMap:
>>
>> https://github.com/**openstreetmap/openstreetmap-**
>> website/pull/180#issuecomment-**12333532
>>
>
> The scrolling itself is not the problem so much as the lack of visual cues
> that you can scroll - as I said on IRC it was only after you started
> talking about a link that I couldn't see that I realised there was anything
> "below the fold" as the giant picture had made it look like a fixed page.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>
>
> __**_
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
 osm: Historical
OSM
 / my OSM user page 
 t: @GWHAThistory 
 f: GWHAThistory 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Tom Hughes]

On 16/01/13 19:08, Alex Barth wrote:


## Terminology: "Contributor mark" vs e. g. "Attribution mark"

Some have pointed out that 'attribution mark' might be a more accurate name. That might 
be, I don't want to change up at the moment but definitely a discussion to be had if ever 
we use this term more "officially" on openstreetmap.org.


I think the problem is that you are already locking in the terminology 
by using "contributors" in the URL of the landing page.


In fact that's my main problem with the terminology - the proposed 
content is not at all what I would expect to see on a page with that URL 
as the URL suggests some sort of list of contributors.



## Design

There were comments on the design being heavy on pictures and not using the current 
OpenStreetMap.org template. I'm thinking these are good things. With adjustments, I'd 
love to keep it this way. The pictures help us communicate that OSM is created by many 
many, many individuals, the full screen page allows us to focus the message. And yes, 
there is scrolling before hitting the links. This is good as we'll want to have the space 
for a couple of points to get across before people jump off. It's not the case that we've 
got great introductory properties to link to right now :) In the future this could 
change: E. g. as soon as we have great introductory material we could link this more 
prominently "Get started mapping" above the fold. Or we could come up with a 
variation of the page that offers a link into an editor placing you right where you left 
the map.

That said, we should work on taking a stronger queue from the overall osm.org 
appearance to link this ad stronger to OpenStreetMap:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/180#issuecomment-12333532


The scrolling itself is not the problem so much as the lack of visual 
cues that you can scroll - as I said on IRC it was only after you 
started talking about a link that I couldn't see that I realised there 
was anything "below the fold" as the giant picture had made it look like 
a fixed page.


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Kai Krueger]

Hi,

may I throw a related, but slightly different concept, out there for
discussion?

I think some of the confusion between "contributor mark" and "attribution
mark" is that they may be entirely different things. From the design I have
seen so far it seems indeed more like a "contributor mark" than an
"attribution mark", but you are planning on using it as an "attribution
mark"

I'll give an example to try and clarify what I mean by "contributor mark" as
opposed to "attribution mark":

Wikipedia have OpenStreetMap integration into articles. I.e. if you open a
geocoded wikipedia article you can click in the top right corner on either
the globe symbol in e.g. the English Wikipedia or the textual link "Map" in
e.g. the German Wikipedia which opens an inline map into the article showing
the place based on an OSM map.

There were considerations on adding an "edit" link to the map, as it would
a) be fitting to Wikipedia and b) help OSM gain new contributors as it can
capitalize on the huge user base of Wikipedia.

However, one concern with adding an edit link was to explain to the
Wikipedia user why after clicking on the edit link they suddenly landed on
this "odd" page called OpenStreetMap which wants a new user name and
password from you. How does this relate to Wikipedia where they actually
wanted to be? What is the concept behind OpenStreetMap? How and what can I
edit?

So the idea was to redirect first time map editors (not logged into OSM and
don't have an OSM cookie) via an explanatory contributor page before sending
them to the editor page.

To Wikipedia users the concept of users editing the content is already
familiar, but on many other third party sites that use OSM maps, the
relation between the page they came from and OSM is likely even less clear
to users.

Therefor having people redirect through a explanatory page would be even
more helpful. I think the contributor page as presented here could be a
really nice basis for such a page.

So instead of replacing attribution, the contributor mark is an additional
component acting as a well recognizable "edit this map" button with the
underlying explanatory page for new contributors.

OSM could then encourage everyone who uses OSM maps to add this contributor
mark / button to really try and capitalize the growing share of OSM users
into new mappers by providing a more user friendly integration. To Website
providers this would also be a benefit, as with including a few lines of
simple html / javascript, they can help improve the maps they are using and
identify them selves as real supporters to the OSM movement.

In that case imho the size and design of the current proposed "contributor
mark" is much more appropriate than as an "attribution mark"

Thoughts?

Kai



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-OSM-contributor-mark-tp5743962p5744950.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Paul Norman]

> From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark
> 
> My initial writeup could have been clearer: This RFC _does_ seek to
> replace the currently recommended line "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors"
> linking to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright with a visual mark
> linking to a future http://openstreetmap.org/contributors. Examples of
> the visual mark can be found on
> http://yhahn.github.com/byosm/examples.html and the suggested
> /contributors page can be found at http://yhahn.github.com/byosm.
> osm.org/copyright would be linked from osm.org/contributors in the
> future, more below.

I question if the hammer is a "notice ... reasonably calculated to make any
Person ... aware that the Content was obtained from the Database ... and
that it is available under [ODbL]".

The example notice for satisfying 4.3 is "Contains information from DATABASE
NAME, wich is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL)"

I've cc'ed legal-talk@ because if this is even allowable is a legal
question. 

Regardless I'm not in favour.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Alex Barth]

Thanks again everyone for reviewing and weighing in. I'll try to summarize 
feedback here and identify adjustments and open decisions. I've added all I'm 
seeing actionable right now to the pull request on OSM.org [1]. I'm not aiming 
to close down the thread for good here, so please respond if I'm missing 
anything or if clarifications bring up additional suggestions. My next actions 
are to work with Saman (copied) on first adjustments based on feedback here.

While many suggested improvements, I am hearing general agreement to further 
pursue this proposal and work on implementing it. 

## Clarifications

My initial writeup could have been clearer: This RFC _does_ seek to replace the 
currently recommended line "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors" linking to 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright with a visual mark linking to a future 
http://openstreetmap.org/contributors. Examples of the visual mark can be found 
on http://yhahn.github.com/byosm/examples.html and the suggested /contributors 
page can be found at http://yhahn.github.com/byosm. osm.org/copyright would be 
linked from osm.org/contributors in the future, more below.

This is intricately linked to the goal of this proposal being to better promote 
OSM's openness on any OSM based map by:

- making it more compelling to click through to OSM
- providing a real entry point to understanding and working with OSM on the 
destination page

## Hammer mark

This has probably been the most discussed issue :) There have been multiple 
voices expressing concern with the suggested hammer-in-teardrop mark. The main 
ones were:

1. It should have some textual component saying "OpenStreetMap" or "OSM"
2. It should be more prominent
3. It is not unique/compelling enough

Points 1 and 2 are easy adjustments, 3 is the tough one. I do sense we have 
agreement on a visual element instead of just a text line but we're not quite 
excited about the hammer. I'd love to follow up on this topic separately, 
rehashing how we got to the current mark and suggesting alternatives.

## Terminology: "Contributor mark" vs e. g. "Attribution mark"

Some have pointed out that 'attribution mark' might be a more accurate name. 
That might be, I don't want to change up at the moment but definitely a 
discussion to be had if ever we use this term more "officially" on 
openstreetmap.org.

## Legal requirement

As the page osm.org/contributors is to be the first one linked from a map it 
needs to fulfill legal requirements. I suggest we adjust the text on 
osm.org/contributors to explicitly reference ODbL and link to an updated 
openstreetmap.org/copyright.

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/180#issuecomment-12293006

## Attributions

There are currently attributions to specific data sources on 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright (Austria to United Kingdom). These need 
to be accomodated on `/contributors`. I see this as an opportunity to add an 
important facet to `/contributors`.

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/180#issuecomment-12333486

## Refine message

There were suggestions to focus the message more on encouraging potential 
mappers. I think that's a good idea. One way of doing this could be to replace 
"Learn more about OSM" with "Get started editing". That would be ideal, there 
is obviously the problem of not really having a spot to link to to 'just get 
started mapping'. Another one is to just tweak the language we're using.

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/180#issuecomment-12333756

## Design

There were comments on the design being heavy on pictures and not using the 
current OpenStreetMap.org template. I'm thinking these are good things. With 
adjustments, I'd love to keep it this way. The pictures help us communicate 
that OSM is created by many many, many individuals, the full screen page allows 
us to focus the message. And yes, there is scrolling before hitting the links. 
This is good as we'll want to have the space for a couple of points to get 
across before people jump off. It's not the case that we've got great 
introductory properties to link to right now :) In the future this could 
change: E. g. as soon as we have great introductory material we could link this 
more prominently "Get started mapping" above the fold. Or we could come up with 
a variation of the page that offers a link into an editor placing you right 
where you left the map.

That said, we should work on taking a stronger queue from the overall osm.org 
appearance to link this ad stronger to OpenStreetMap:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/180#issuecomment-12333532

[1] Related pull request on osm-website: 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/180

On Jan 11, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Alex Barth  wrote:

> Over here at MapBox we see a need to better communicate the open and 
> contributory philosophy of OpenStreetMap on our maps. In striving to build a 
> true data com

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-ht] Haiti.

[Jaakko Helleranta.com]

Hi Shawn,

Having mapped Haiti for bit over three years now and living here for nearly
two and a half, working with different geo/mapping projects I very much
agree that -- and have been thinking a lot about -- figuring out how to
highlight the good things that are happening here.

There are some initiatives/services that work in this field but I'll leave
a commentary of the "scene" to a separate message as I'd want to get the
bigger picture (as I see it) articulated sufficiently well.

Coincidentally I just downloaded a few days ago "all" POIs of OSM Haiti
(using XAPI of an OSM mirror). It's only a 17MB (.osm) file which I have
made available here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9dqzni0tr0o4h8g/Haiti%20POI%20Map%20v0.01.osm if
you want to take a look.
... Please note that this is a _live_ .osm file and any adjustments,
additions or deletions you do to it would be applied to the live OSM
database if you upload it (in JOSM or any other editor).

Talking of barber shops in specific: I like the idea ... and might actually
be able to get permission to add to OSM at least some chunk of geo-coded
barber shop locations around the country. .. Gotta see if that's possible.

I'd suggest that we continue this thread on talk-ht@ (unless there are
aspects that keep this relevant to talk@). Dunno how to set reply-to in
Gmail on single messages, though..

I'll get back to this on my behalf with more thoughts in a few days.

Cheers,
-Jaakko

--
jaa...@helleranta.com * Skype: jhelleranta * Mobile: +509-37-269154  *
http://go.hel.cc/about.me

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Kate Chapman  wrote:

> Hi Shawn,
>
> There is an active OpenStreetMap community in Haiti. (Some of them
> read this list).
>
> I've cc'd that list if you'd like to get involved there is probably
> the best place.
>
> Last year there was a project in St. Marc that might be of interest:
>
>
> http://hot.openstreetmap.org/updates/2012-06-24_return_to_the_training_in_saint_marc_haiti_mixing_generic_and_specific_teaching_a
>
>
> http://hot.openstreetmap.org/updates/2012-04-24_coming_to_a_close_in_saint_marc
>
> Best,
>
> -Kate
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Shawn Dash  wrote:
> > Dear OpenStreetMap friends of Haiti:
> >
> > A few days ago headlines about Haiti were all about the 3-year earthquake
> > anniversary.   Is that really all Haiti is?!
> >
> > I love telling my friends that there are many businesses in Haiti and
> that
> > the country actually is flourishing.And, again, people just do not
> > believe.
> >
> > I am thinking that it would be really wonderful to create a map of the
> small
> > businesses in Haiti -- to show and prove that it is not just tents and
> > cholera.
> >
> > Let's begin a conversation about how life goes on in Haiti, how the
> county
> > is living and breathing, and how Haiti is actually standing on it's own
> and
> > moving forward.
> >
> > The headlines about Haiti should be the beauty and the life, not the
> > destruction and the aid!
> >
> > I tried to find a map of small businesses in Haiti -- and all I could
> find
> > was something in Foursquare that's nice, but it is mainly in the richer
> > areas and it is more about night-clubs and drinking and not really the
> small
> > businesses.
> >
> > I think it would be really interesting to GPS tag as many barbershops in
> > Haiti as possible, since, the barbershop -- in it's own way -- is a sign
> > that life goes on in Haiti, and that there is indeed a local economy.
> As
> > we both know, there's thousands of barbershops, everywhere, even in
> > containers!
> >
> > I am wondering if, as you are geo-mapping and geo-tagging, if there is
> > anyway to start a project show I can show my friends that Haiti is not
> just
> > disease and famine -- there is very much a living life, too!
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-ht mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ht
> Notez! Vous pouvez utiliser Google Translate (http://translate.google.com)
> pour traduire les messages.
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New website style sheet

[Christian Quest]

2013/1/16 Pieren 

> Just to say that making texts bigger works fine for big screens only.
>


I've quickly looked at screen size gathered by piwik on OSM-FR website
during the past 6 months.

Here are the results:

- 7% with less than 1024 pixel width
- 45% between 1024 and 1400
- 28% between 1400 and 1920
- 19% with 1920 or above

- 14% less than 1 millions pixels
- 53% between 1 and 1.5 millions pixels
- 13% between 1.5 and 2 millions pixels
- 19% above 2 millions pixels

In order not to let too many people frustrated because of their screen
size, its good to check the result on 1280x800 screens or have different
stylesheets for small and large screens.

On my 15" MacBook Pro it's ok and on my dual 30" MacPro it's perfect ;)

-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France -
http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New website style sheet

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Alex Barth  wrote:

> Not sure where you're trying to go?

Just to say that making texts bigger works fine for big screens only.
Otherwise, search results from GeoNames become invisible for instance.
The site is maybe a bit cleaner but with much less content displayed
at once.
I'm aware that feel and colours will never satisfy everybody (and I'm
not against changes) but the style sheet should care more about the
different screens resolutions. Now, the vertical scrolling is 2 times
longer for the same content.

> Anyway, you can always reduce the text display size in your browser
My browser works usually fine, thank you. It sounds a bit strange to
change the text size just for osm.org . Now we have a huge contrast
between the font sizes on the map and the html text.

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New website style sheet

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/1/16 Pieren :
> osm.org has recently modified his style sheet in various areas (search
> results, diary, etc). The result is "OSM air", a lot of spacing
> between text lines.

> Is it a subliminal stimuli to fill gaps in the map ? Or an adjustment
> for fat fingers on smartphones ? I don't know. But for those not using
> retina or xtra full widescreens, it's not an improvement.


I think that high resolution screens will become more and more usual,
so maybe the alternative would be to have a special treatment for
people visiting the site with particularily low resolution screens?
Personally I don't see increased line spacing e.g. on diaries (but it
looks like increased font size and maybe increased spacing for
paragraphs and headlines, which I find more relaxing to read at the
default size. I'm on Linux/Firefox 18, 1366x768, no hi-res). Anyway,
you can always reduce the text display size in your browser (usually
"ctrl -") if you mind scrolling.

Best compliments to Saman for the good work.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New website style sheet

[Alex Barth]

Hey Joseph -

Best is github right there: 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/new

I've seen your ticket coming in today and alerted also Saman to it, so no need 
to refile.

On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Joseph Reeves  wrote:

> Hi Alex,
> 
> Thanks for the link to this. If we're wanting to submit issues / enter 
> discussion, should we be posting to github or trac? I've opened one ticket 
> today, for example, asking that the history page be broken up more [0]. 
> Looking at github, however, I see that this may be part of the planned 
> "better vertical rhythm".
> 
> Cheers, Joseph
> 
> [0] https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4745
> 
> 
> On 16 January 2013 13:17, Alex Barth  wrote:
> For reference, this is the relevan ticket on openstreetmap-website:
> 
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/150
> 
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Pieren  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > osm.org has recently modified his style sheet in various areas (search
> > results, diary, etc). The result is "OSM air", a lot of spacing
> > between text lines.
> > Is it a subliminal stimuli to fill gaps in the map ? Or an adjustment
> > for fat fingers on smartphones ? I don't know. But for those not using
> > retina or xtra full widescreens, it's not an improvement.
> >
> > Pieren
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> Alex Barth
> http://twitter.com/lxbarth
> tel (+1) 202 250 3633
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Alex Barth
http://twitter.com/lxbarth
tel (+1) 202 250 3633





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New website style sheet

[Joseph Reeves]

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the link to this. If we're wanting to submit issues / enter
discussion, should we be posting to github or trac? I've opened one ticket
today, for example, asking that the history page be broken up more [0].
Looking at github, however, I see that this may be part of the planned
"better vertical rhythm".

Cheers, Joseph

[0] https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4745


On 16 January 2013 13:17, Alex Barth  wrote:

> For reference, this is the relevan ticket on openstreetmap-website:
>
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/150
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Pieren  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > osm.org has recently modified his style sheet in various areas (search
> > results, diary, etc). The result is "OSM air", a lot of spacing
> > between text lines.
> > Is it a subliminal stimuli to fill gaps in the map ? Or an adjustment
> > for fat fingers on smartphones ? I don't know. But for those not using
> > retina or xtra full widescreens, it's not an improvement.
> >
> > Pieren
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> Alex Barth
> http://twitter.com/lxbarth
> tel (+1) 202 250 3633
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New website style sheet

[Alex Barth]

For reference, this is the relevan ticket on openstreetmap-website:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/150

On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Pieren  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> osm.org has recently modified his style sheet in various areas (search
> results, diary, etc). The result is "OSM air", a lot of spacing
> between text lines.
> Is it a subliminal stimuli to fill gaps in the map ? Or an adjustment
> for fat fingers on smartphones ? I don't know. But for those not using
> retina or xtra full widescreens, it's not an improvement.
> 
> Pieren
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Alex Barth
http://twitter.com/lxbarth
tel (+1) 202 250 3633





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New website style sheet

[Alex Barth]

It's a subliminal stimuli to fill the gaps in the map ;-)

Not sure where you're trying to go? I think the design cleanup is overall an 
improvement (disclaimer: I'm Saman's colleague). I'm not sure how your comment 
is going to get to a constructive discussion about improving OSM.org's design, 
which is clearly necessary. And I'm not talking lipstick.

On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Pieren  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> osm.org has recently modified his style sheet in various areas (search
> results, diary, etc). The result is "OSM air", a lot of spacing
> between text lines.
> Is it a subliminal stimuli to fill gaps in the map ? Or an adjustment
> for fat fingers on smartphones ? I don't know. But for those not using
> retina or xtra full widescreens, it's not an improvement.
> 
> Pieren
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Alex Barth
http://twitter.com/lxbarth
tel (+1) 202 250 3633





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] New website style sheet

[Pieren]

Hi,

osm.org has recently modified his style sheet in various areas (search
results, diary, etc). The result is "OSM air", a lot of spacing
between text lines.
Is it a subliminal stimuli to fill gaps in the map ? Or an adjustment
for fat fingers on smartphones ? I don't know. But for those not using
retina or xtra full widescreens, it's not an improvement.

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Simon Poole]

Alex

Yes, there is at least a handful of contributors have had the link
specified in discussion or/and agreement. While it is unlikely that it
was put in writing that it should be one click away from the map, it
would seem to be rather devious to simply move it without at least
consultation.

On top of that there is a vocal group that thinks that the attribution
and licence presentation as it is now is not prominent enough, moving it
further away is undoubtedly going to be opposed.

One thing the work leading up to the licence change showed was that how
we document and administrate imports and other data sources doesn't
scale and leads to a mass of essentially undocumented (for example
attribution requirements) and orphaned imports. So yes I believe we will
need to change and merge both attribution locations, but simply merging
the two lists is not going to address the underlying issues (which IMHO
not difficult to get a handle on).

Simon


Am 15.01.2013 23:15, schrieb Alex Barth:
> Frederik -
>
> On Jan 11, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
>> the copyright page we're using now might be better suited for that, not 
>> least because many third parties who give us their data are promised 
>> attribution via that page and it might not be good to put that behind too 
>> many clicks.
> I'd like to understand better, have these parties been promised the 
> /copyright location for credits? How do they wind up on there vs. on the 
> wiki? Is there any leeway to merge them into (a better) 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors and move them a click away 
> from the page on OSM that's linked from maps?  
>
> Alex Barth
> http://twitter.com/lxbarth
> tel (+1) 202 250 3633
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk