Mike wrote
> On 26.04.13. 10:19, Kai Krueger wrote:
>
>>> 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 it as small mark in corner of the
>>> map as when resized t
dieterdreist wrote
> that logo is old, it is based on the version we used prior to 29 April
> 2011. The current logo is this:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=File:Public-images-osm_logo.svg&page=1
The logo you linked to replaced the logo
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Ma
2013/4/26 Christian Rogel
>
> Op. licen. OpStrtMap contrib.
>
Abbreviations aren't friendly and look complicated. A simple "By OSM" makes
it friendly and could attract more new mappers.
I agree it looks a bit "closed" like "it's made by me, give me money" but I
think the simplicity is great.
Le 26 avr. 2013 à 10:38, Volker Schmidt a écrit :
> (I have only now looked into this thread. Please forgive me if my comment
> duplicates what has been said earlier)
>
> My main concern with the little "OSM" symbol is that I fear that
> "OpenStreetMap" is not (yet) sufficiently well known as
On 26.04.13. 10:12, Peter Wendorff wrote:
> And I didn't understand anybody in this discussion as that: Not the
> visual identifier as it is a poor idea, but the REPLACEMENT of the text
> by this visual identifier is.
I tend to agree with you until OpenStretMap gets wrong visual identity.
Then,
On 26.04.13. 10:19, Kai Krueger wrote:
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 it as small mark in corner of the
map as when resized to needed small resolution ima
On 24.04.13. 16:48, Liz Barry wrote:
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/
> And I didn't understand anybody in this discussion as that: Not the> visual
>identifier as it is a poor idea, but the REPLACEMENT of the text
> by this visual identifier is.
>...
> Reducing that to a visual project is a common error, but it's not correct.
I've seen a few responses that because
One or two points:
- "OSM" abbreviation is not so clear as "OpenStreetMap" and not so popular
yet that everyone will understand immediately what it is but, by chance,
osm.org is pointing to the right site (so, displaying OSM instead of
OpenStreetMap is not that bad).
- there is no legal obligation
2013/4/26 Kai Krueger
> Therefore my preference would be to recommend people to use the
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm_linkage.png logo were possible
> and otherwise fall back to the (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL
>
that logo is old, it is based on the version we used prior
On 26/04/13 08:44, Robert Banick wrote:
As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It
seems a big contradictory to assert that a visual identifier for a
mapping project is a poor idea.
Well there's your first problem - it isn't (primarily) a cartographic
project at all. I
(I have only now looked into this thread. Please forgive me if my comment
duplicates what has been said earlier)
My main concern with the little "OSM" symbol is that I fear that
"OpenStreetMap" is not (yet) sufficiently well known as "brand" to the
general public that we could drop it. Anything we
Hi,
On 04/26/2013 09:44 AM, Robert Banick wrote:
As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual?
Certainly not. But you should have known that - I have read your recent
tweets and you talk about using the iD editor in training people to
contribute to OSM. There would not be a
Mike wrote
> 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 u
Hi Robert.
Am 26.04.2013 09:44, schrieb Robert Banick:
> As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It
> seems a big contradictory to assert that a visual identifier for a
> mapping project is a poor idea.
But OSM is not (only) a cartoGRAPHIC project, it's a geoDATA project.
O
Sorry to jump in only so briefly, but a small point struck me reading
this discussion:
"I don't accept that an image is a beneficial replacement for the
text. When I say beneficial, I mean beneficial to OpenStreetMap. "
As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It
seems a
16 matches
Mail list logo
