gt; Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:57 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark
> > >
> > > Thanks for weighing in everyone. Based on the discussion, here are the
> > > immediate adjustments I'm seeing shaking out from this thread:
> &
Paul - sorry, yeah. Not talking to ODC but I'll make sure to run by LWG.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> > From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution
> From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark
>
> Thanks for weighing in everyone. Based on the discussion, here are the
> immediate adjustments I'm seeing shaking out f
2013/5/1 Alex Barth
> (1) The BY in BY OSM
>
> Several arguments where made that 'by' might be misleading. So, Saman and
> I have been going through alternatives to "BY" before too, namely:
>
> - "WITH"
> - no addition at all
> - "DATA BY"
> - and others
>
actually there is a different attribu
Thanks for weighing in everyone. Based on the discussion, here are the
immediate adjustments I'm seeing shaking out from this thread:
1. Don't mandate, but recommend/offer attribution mark
2. Make it clear that /copyright is scrollable
3. Let's do an alt text to make sure we're on Google's radar ;
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/
* +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
> From: Peter Wendorff
>To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:12 AM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor
>mark)
>
>
>Hi Robert.
>
>Am
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
ty. And the newly designed page is a
> great improvement, great welcome, to not only explain the legalities, but
> what OSM is about ... people who care about data.
>
> -Mikel
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
>>
>
to not only explain the legalities, but what OSM is
about ... people who care about data.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
> From: Richard Weait
>To: Kathleen Danielson
>Cc: Talk
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:34 PM
>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Kathleen Danielson <
kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Richard, can you explain a little more of why you think that the idea is
> bad for OSM?
>
Removing "OpenStreetMap" from the attribution requirement is bad for
OpenStreetMap. It is good for OpenStreet
this seems
to be insupportable by the license.
From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:08 PM
To: Paul Norman
Cc: Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor
mark)
Paul -
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Paul
Paul -
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> I can’t see any legal justification in the ODbL for allowing a mark or the
> example notice, but not something between.
>
Not sure I follow.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
htt
___
> From: Kathleen Danielson
>To: Paul Norman
>Cc: Talk
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:13 PM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor
>mark)
>
>
>
>Paul, that sounds like a fair point, if I'm understanding correct
gt; *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2013 5:40 AM
> *To:* Talk
> *Subject:* [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor
> mark)
>
> ** **
>
> 4. The mark is an alternative to "© Open
for
allowing a mark or the example notice, but not something between.
Have you passed any of these ideas by other publishers of ODbL data or the ODC
lists?
From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 5:40 AM
To: Talk
Subject: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
+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
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
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
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
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
> 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 -
>
&
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> It'd be good to release Leaflet/OpenLayers plugins to do the attribution.
> If
> I were feeling Machiavellian I'd suggest we consider hosting them on our
> servers (load permitting) so we get an automatic heads-up of who's using
> OSM..
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Thumbs up. This is really good. I love having "Local knowledge" in prime
> position.
>
>
-1
If the most important information is the "local knowledge" and "community
driven", then the page should be renamed as the "about the project" and
Alex Barth wrote:
> This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this
> year titled "Contributor Mark" [1, 2].
Thumbs up. This is really good. I love having "Local knowledge" in prime
position.
It'd be good to release Leaflet/OpenLayers plugins to do the attribution. If
I wer
On Apr 22, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
>> 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to.
>> It is much closer to today's `/copyright`
>
> I think the new copyright page is very nice looking and presents its data
> well, but I, personally, still find it a little
On 22.04.13 14:40, Alex Barth wrote:
> 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters "OSM"
While "OSM" is a common phrase to us "mappers", only the name/brand
"OpenStreetMap" is widely and well known to the public. So this name
"OpenStreetMap" should always be visible, whether the attrib
It seems that the desire to use a huge image as the background comes at the
expense of the page content. To me a copyright page is about getting the
*details* over. By placing too much emphasis on the image the copyright
page appears like a *brand* or some fancy press release. We have other
pages t
On 22/04/13 13:40, Alex Barth wrote:
The update to the original RFC brings 4 key changes:
1. Rename the proposal from 'Contributor Mark' to 'Attribution Mark'
2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters "OSM"
The new mark is definitely a distinct improvement - at least now there
* Alex Barth [2013-04-22 08:40 -0400]:
> 2. A completely redesigned mark, containing the letters "OSM"
I like it. Definitely more distinctive and specific to OSM than the
hammer icon.
> 3. A completely redesigned `/copyright` page, the page the mark links to.
> It is much closer to today's `/co
Michal Migurski wrote:
> What about “with OSM” instead of “by OSM”?
>
> -mike.
>
> ---
> michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com
>
> On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> >
> > The copyright page is now much better than before and IMHO contai
Agreed. I think that either "With OSM" or "Powered By OSM" would explain
the relationship a bit better than "By OSM" which suggests explicit
authorship of whatever is displaying the watermark. That might not always
be the case.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Michal Migurski wrote:
> What abo
What about “with OSM” instead of “by OSM”?
-mike.
---
michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com
On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> The copyright page is now much better than before and IMHO contains the
> necessary contents. There are a c
The copyright page is now much better than before and IMHO contains the
necessary contents. There are a couple of wording issues that are
already present in the current version that we should address while
we're at it (but that is mainly CWG/OWG turf) but nothing major.
I do have a couple of issu
Hi,
I like the Attribution Mark, but I think one point is missing: The link
to the wiki-contributors-page.
Henning
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
2013/4/22 Alex Barth
> This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year
> titled "Contributor Mark" [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with
> adjustments based on feedback on the original thread.
>
> Again, the goal of this proposal is to draw more attention to
Looking great. One small suggestion on the /copyright page ... link to OSM
signup towards the top as well.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
> From: Alex Barth
>To: Talk
>Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 8:40 AM
>Subject: [OSM-ta
Hello everyone -
I'd love to start pushing again on the OSM attribution mark.
This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year
titled "Contributor Mark" [1, 2]. Sorry for the delay in following up with
adjustments based on feedback on the original thread.
Again, the goa
59 matches
Mail list logo
