> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:40:13 -0400
> From: Alex Barth
> To: Talk
> Subject: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was:
> contributor mark)
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello everyone -
>
> I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM at
> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:40:13 -0400
> From: Alex Barth
> To: Talk
> Subject: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was:
> contributor mark)
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello everyone -
>
> I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM at
I love where this is headed. As a developer that builds a business application
making use of OSM as a base layer, we have hundreds of users all over the world
that need high-quality base layer data for reference when conducting fieldwork,
many of them in GIS / mapping departments with mapping ex
I think the root of this issue is lack of strong OpenStreetMap brand,
or, at least, lack of visual identity of the brand.
Current OSM logo lacks necessary properties of good brand visual
identification, and thus it is not used much. The most obvious problem
is it is not usable - you cannot use
The proposed mark is very well suited as a replacement. It is simple,
minimalistic, and works well on a variety of backgrounds.
+1
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Mike wrote:
> I think the root of this issue is lack of strong OpenStreetMap brand, or,
> at least, lack of visual identity of th
John,
On 04/24/2013 03:56 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote:
The proposed mark is very well suited as a replacement. It is simple,
minimalistic, and works well on a variety of backgrounds.
You wrote the above as a "+1" to a statement from Mike Cuttler that said
What should be done first is es
+1 to Alex's original post -- the new attribution mark is well designed
and versatile for its purposes. The shape of the folded map links the
attribution mark with our logo.
+1 spiffed up copyright page BUT the proportion of image to information
"above the fold" still needs finetuning, as well as
On 24/04/2013 16:03, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Are you therefore saying that what has been designed as an attribution
mark should be our new logo, or are you saying that there does not
have to be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark?
Let me add the following alternative : there has
I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's points about the current branding around
the project. However, as there has been generally positive feedback for the
design of this attribution mark, would it make sense to move forward with
using the attribution mark (since it addresses an immediate problem) and
I quickly put the logo side by side with the attribution mark. I feel it is
clearly of the same family, linked by
1. the shape of the folded map
2. the color grey in the magnifying glass handle
i uploaded the JPG to twitter --
https://twitter.com/lizbarry/status/327071379105120257
What do
Before we get in to too much bike shedding: the CWG (as essentially our
marketing arm) has been asking for more help for a long time. Net we
have had less and less volunteers there over time.
The CWG would clearly be the place to engage in such a discussion. I'm
not sure that "re-branding" would
I support moving forward as stated by Kathleen. It is also an opportunity
to explore rebranding; and it's desirability; in more detail as a separate
discussion.
Best,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Kathleen Danielson <
kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's
Kathleen Danielson wrote:
> However, as there has been generally positive feedback for the
> design of this attribution mark, would it make sense to move
> forward with using the attribution mark (since it addresses an
> immediate problem)
Definitely. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and al
Hi,
On 04/24/13 16:28, Kathleen Danielson wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's points about the current branding
around the project. However, as there has been generally positive
feedback for the design of this attribution mark,
I think that the positive feedback is mainly because the new
Both the new mark and the copyright page look very slick. Clean, friendly,
inviting. Great work!
--
Marc Regan
Cofounder, Mapkin (http://mapkin.co)
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Kathleen Danielson wrote:
> > However, as there has been generally positi
I agree the logo is great, but not as an attribution mark.
To me, the most important thing in the actual attribution is '& contributors'
We should keep the text.
Yves
- Reply message -
De : "Marc Regan"
Pour :
Objet : [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
D
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
> Hello everyone -
>
> I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark.
>
Clearly. :-)
I think that the idea is bad for OpenStreetMap.
The logo is pretty.
The logo is pretty and the idea is bad for OpenStreetMap. At the core, th
Hi!
The conference SOTM Baltics will be held in 3-4 August (Saturday-Sunday)
2013 in Tartu, Estonia.
The conference page in the OSM-wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SOTM_Baltics_2013
Registration to the SOTM Baltics will be announced in this list as soon as
possible.
See you in Tartu a
The example notice for OdBL contents is “Contains information from DATABASE
NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL).”
This will always be acceptable as it is explicitly stated as meeting the
requirements of 4.3. I can’t see any legal justification in the ODbL fo
19 matches
Mail list logo
