To authors of this proposed attribution guideline.
Why it is contains misleading recommendation that
real attribution may be not present on mobile devices?
Is it something that will be discussed on LWG meeting today?
(this time I should be able to participate via Mumble,
not sure whatever it is
2
>
> Worthy of consideration for openstreetmap.org?
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Eisenberg
> Sent: Sunday, 8 March 2020 11:23 AM
> To: Simon Poole
> Cc: openstreetmap
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update
>
> I
2020 11:23 AM
To: Simon Poole
Cc: openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update
Is there any update about the attribution guidelines?
At this point is there a chance that further comments and concerns will be
addressed, or is this a "done deal", where commu
Is there any update about the attribution guidelines?
At this point is there a chance that further comments and concerns
will be addressed, or is this a "done deal", where community input is
no longer going to be considered?
- Joseph Eisenberg
On 2/19/20, Simon Poole wrote:
> The LWG has now
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:25:48 +0100
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
> >
> > Artificial "yes", but the main thing is that it is small enough to
> > ensure that it will essentially never be a substantial extract, on
> > the other hand large enough that
20 Feb 2020, 12:09 by o...@imagico.de:
> That an attribution
> hidden under an 'i' visible only on user interaction does not qualify
> as such is self evident i think.
>
+1
I am quite confused why it is
explicitly listed as acceptable.
Is someone thinking that typical people
click on every
20 Feb 2020, 18:44 by si...@poole.ch:
>
> Am 19.02.2020 um 14:24 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
>
>> In this case the statement that "small maps or multiple data sources"
>> are the only cases where the document does not require visible
>> attribution is wrong. For example it is later stated
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:19 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :
> On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
> For example it is later stated that
> > > visible attribution is not required if "there is legal or safety or
> > > privacy information that needs to be presented with similar or
>
On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
> Am 19.02.2020 um 14:24 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> > In this case the statement that "small maps or multiple data
> > sources" are the only cases where the document does not require
> > visible attribution is wrong. For example it is later
Am 19.02.2020 um 14:24 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> In this case the statement that "small maps or multiple data sources"
> are the only cases where the document does not require visible
> attribution is wrong. For example it is later stated that visible
> attribution is not required if
On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Artificial "yes", but the main thing is that it is small enough to
> ensure that it will essentially never be a substantial extract, on
> the other hand large enough that you can cover the location of your
> entrance, parking lot or whatever in
On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
> >
> > So the recommendation for small devices can and should only be that
> > if a data user uses OSM data under conditions where the usual
> > attribution is technically not possible or economically not
> > desirable they have to choose a
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 11:53 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :
> The ODbL requires the attribution to be "reasonably calculated ...",
> which includes, naturally, "where the user would typically expect to
> find attribution".
indeed, that's why I posted extracts of the requirements of the
Am 20.02.2020 um 11:34 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> What you don't seem to understand is that there is nothing in the ODbL
> that allows the conclusion that for OSM data use on certain devices
> there is a *lesser* requirement for making the user aware of the use of
> OSM data than on others
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 11:32 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :
> Am 20.02.2020 um 11:19 schrieb Christian Quest:
> >
> > - the 10.000m2 limit, this is completely artificial
> >
> >
> Artificial "yes", but the main thing is that it is small enough to
> ensure that it will essentially never be a
I agree that talking about specific forms of attribution is pointless
here. Each corporate OSM data user has a huge department of people who
every day do no other thing than thinking about new and creative ways
to pry for their users' attention and use it in the company's interest.
They do
Am 20.02.2020 um 11:19 schrieb Christian Quest:
>
> - the 10.000m2 limit, this is completely artificial
>
>
Artificial "yes", but the main thing is that it is small enough to
ensure that it will essentially never be a substantial extract, on the
other hand large enough that you can cover the
Le 19/02/2020 à 09:59, Simon Poole a écrit :
The LWG has now integrated feedback from the initial airing in August
last year, from a total of three sessions at SOTM-US and SOTM in
Heidelberg, feedback from the OSMF board and from the wider OSM community.
Barring any major late developing
Good luck with Mapbox trying to comply with odbl, OSMF corporate foundation
and community expectations, to their their of service and the attribution
you just quoted. They will try to close the ticket several times without
solving the issues. wall hammering.
The examples you gave were checked and
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 01:06 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org>:
> And "mobile devices may have attribution after one interaction"
> absolutely MUST be removed.
>
> This part looks like written by Mapbox copyright lawyers
> to legitimise their unacceptable
Folks, I was being a bit tongue in cheek, obviously the point didn't get
across. I apologize and re-state:
For many legal and marketing reasons providing attribution to "OSM" is
not something that is likely ever going to be supported or recommended
by the OSMF as sufficient.
This is nothing new
As Martin (@ dieterdreist) mentioned above, even 200 pixels is plenty
of space for the 15 character long "© Openstreetmap": that gives you
12 pixels per character width.
For example, our rendering of "Upper Hutchinson"... (field) in Chicago
is only 81 x 12 pixels for 16 characters at 10 point
19 Feb 2020, 13:14 by o...@imagico.de:
> Anyway - while i am not surprised about this it is sobering how little
> of the feedback provided in previous conversation - in particular from:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-August/thread.html#83068
>
> has found a substantial
19 Feb 2020, 21:05 by si...@poole.ch:
>
>
>
> Am 19.02.2020 um 20:17 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
>
>> 19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000
>>> actual retina pixels or 1500 px on a
On 19/02/2020 12:14, Christoph Hormann wrote:
I am therfore
reluctant to newly review the document in detail because it seems a
waste of effort.
Don't bother then. No one will miss it.
--
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
sent from a phone
>> On 19. Feb 2020, at 21:10, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 19.02.2020 um 20:17 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
>> 19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>> But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000 actual retina
>> pixels or 1500 px on a
Am 19.02.2020 um 20:17 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
> 19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000
> actual retina pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3).
>
> Yes, you may easily fit at least "© OSM"
> with link in such
19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
> But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000 actual retina
> pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3).
>
Yes, you may easily fit at least "© OSM"
with link in such space.
Suggesting that real attribution is
not required in such case is
For the sake of the discussion about 'small map' size, a mockup on the wiki
would certainly help.
The 500dpi and 25% size seems quite big to me, there's room for (c)
Openstreetmap there.
Yves Cainaud ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
I believe there is actually a small issue with the definition here, as
there are two conflicting DIP definitions in use (one pixel on mobile
devices ~160 DPI vs one pixel for CSS 96 DPI), we need to state what we
are using.
Simon
Am 19.02.2020 um 17:22 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> sent from
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 19 feb 2020, alle ore 16:37, Michal Migurski ha
> scritto:
>
> For our purposes, this is a better definition because it’s defined in terms
> of what a viewer can see rather than its implementation in hardware.
contrary to what I had written above I agree that
sent from a phone
> As pointed out in the guideline text, the difference is not only screen size,
> but how you interact with the device. Try clicking on your average watch.
>
watches are kind of an exception because of their really small screen, but they
are already perfectly covered by
> On Feb 19, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
> I am not sure what "device-independent pixels" means. Is this about points
> (i.e. physical, hardware screen pixels divided by the scale)? IMHO we should
> require actual, physical pixels, because it is them who determine whether
Am 19.02.2020 um 15:59 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> ..
> Imho we should not differentiate between mobile and desktop devices:
> either there is sufficient space and attribution should be permanent,
> or there isn’t and it is ok you have to click somewhere to see it. The
> constraints/conditions
There is a difference (a very big one), between saying "if you do X we
believe you are fulfilling the requirements of the licence" and saying
"you need to do Y to make us happy, even if it doesn't have any founding
in the licence". And that has nothing to do with winning court cases,
but all with
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 19 feb 2020, alle ore 15:17, Simon Poole ha
> scritto:
>
>
> Am 19.02.2020 um 14:40 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
>>> IMHO attribution should always be required 1. on the map 2. in high
>>> contrast
>> Agreed.
>> The main problem is that mobile devices, which
If the map says "Copyright BoxMap, imagery copyright IRSE" in bold in
the right corner, but the Openstreetmap notice is hidden behind a tiny
"i" or ony shown briefly on app startup (which only happens after your
phone crashes or the app updates), then this gives the impression that
the data is
Am 19.02.2020 um 15:02 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
>
> In my mind I always ask the question: How essential was OSM for what is
> being done? How much of your hike remains if you remove OSM from the
> picture? How much of a trained AI remains if you remove OSM from the
> picture?
Assuming "essential"
Am 19.02.2020 um 14:40 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
>> IMHO attribution should always be required 1. on the map 2. in high contrast
> Agreed.
>
> The main problem is that mobile devices, which are by far the most
> common ways of accessing maps around the world, are only required to
> provide
Hi,
On 19.02.20 14:38, Simon Poole wrote:
> As a thought experiment consider planning a trip around your fav place
> boundary with OSM, going for the walk with an OSM based map in your
> hand so that you stay on course, and then writing a a blog post about
> your experience. For the purpose of
> IMHO attribution should always be required 1. on the map 2. in high contrast
Agreed.
The main problem is that mobile devices, which are by far the most
common ways of accessing maps around the world, are only required to
provide attribution after a click or swipe, or even just on app
startup
Am 19.02.2020 um 13:50 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> ...
> I acknowledge Kathleen Lu's recent remark about the ODbL being very
> clear on a derived product having to "contain" OSM in some way which
> would not be the case here; but I think this calls for working on ODbL
> 1.1 to rectify the issue,
Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
frede...@remote.org>:
> > Not to mention the most blatant attempts at sneaking corporate wishlist
> > items into the guideline are all still there - like the 1 m^2 map
> > area limit that has been conjured out of thin air
>
> True,
On Wednesday 19 February 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> * "Except for small maps or multiple data sources, as described
> below, attribution must be visible without requiring the user to
> click on an icon or similar interaction." - Your critique focuses on
> the exceptions, but saying clearly
Hi,
On 19.02.20 13:14, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> the document then almost exclusively presents
> supposed exceptions from the attribution requirement of the ODbL.
I've just read the document for the first time this morning, so I don't
have the context of prior discussions and I think your
On Wednesday 19 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> The updated document can be found here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline
I appreciate the draft document being available on the wiki - although
the lack of an edit history makes this fairly pointless for the
The LWG has now integrated feedback from the initial airing in August
last year, from a total of three sessions at SOTM-US and SOTM in
Heidelberg, feedback from the OSMF board and from the wider OSM community.
Barring any major late developing issues, we intend to forward this to
the OSMF board
47 matches
Mail list logo
