On Jan 16, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Jeff Meyer <j...@gwhat.org> 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 <a...@mapbox.com> 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 <kakrue...@gmail.com> 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 > > > > -- > 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 > > > Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
